Me too. They've been going on about this internet thing like it's the Second Coming for years, and here I am, all these years later, still haven't used it, and I'm fine. I don't see what all the fuss can possibly be about if I can get along so well without it.
Nah, most internet users don't contribute a damn thing. The closest most come to providing content is the small minority who don't know how to stop their p2p clients from uploading back into the system.
It'll be no different from today: Microsoft and Sony will still be taking up 90% of the press attention with their wafer-thin attention grabbing B.S., with Nintendo continuing to take in profit by the truckload in the background. Graphics will continue to win ground against gameplay, and I will continue to buy less and less games. More companies will be bought by bigger companies as the price of producing a game is forced up by increasingly laughable production values.
I nearly hosed my system when I hand compiled a development version of an exotic X server, but thanks to my hands on approach to system administration, I was able to get out of that doozey after mere hours of searching. God knows what I would have done about it if I wasn't so happy to dig in and screw with random shit!
What can I say that won't come off as a flame? Ah! At least nobody will accuse you of lying about being a Gentoo user!
By the way, the hands on approach is possible in other ways. I use Slackware and sometimes fuck with stuff too, but I get to be more intrepid than you because I've got less to lose, because when my system stops booting, it's back to normal after about an hour and a half of reinstallation.
Pfft. By Swedish is a brilliant phrase, referring specifically to The Pirate Bay. It means that the subsequent phrase is true because everyone wants it to be. Examples:
By Swedish, that guy can't have kids. What a dumbass!
By Swedish, copying music is perfectly legal.
By Swedish, they're going to make a new series of Futurama.
On a more serious note, why the fuck do all Swedish people always have such good English?
You're missing my point completely. Natural language means mistakes being taken for what's correct, styles, dialects.
Any hope of a standards-compliant web died when browsers began including code to deal with incorrect markup. As nice an idea as standards are (and I do support standards, even on my own site, and more than most), in practical terms, the real standard today is whether the top half a dozen browsers, most of which are different versions of Internet Explorer, can render your page correctly. Just as the real standard in natural language isn't whether the dictionary or the Oxford English dictionary or the Real Academia Española says something's right, but whether a speaker of that language says it is.
I think you're underestimating how stubborn I can be - I originally had the correct doctype, and I literally deleted it to replace it with something I knew was complete bullshit. It's not there any more though because I've been working on my site and ended up replacing everything at a moment when I wasn't in the mood to put extra crap in.
My page does actually validate now. I put a shorter doctype in, one that doesn't look too hacky, and put the character encoding meta tag back in. I had taken that out because it seems so incredibly unnecessary, but once you're already looking at the validator page, and there's one more error left, it's hard to resist.
Have you checked joe-baldwin.net? He's fixed it. His attitude towards validation is similar to mine - once it's rendering right, it's not as important. Which is strange, because my site validates perfectly and I don't know if it renders ok in Internet Explorer yet.
It's funny how that works out. The most invalid site I visit works really well in most browsers. Its only real bug is in Konqueror, where the forum list turns to mush. All because the guy in charge of it uses Firefox, and so he has to put at least the minimum of effort into cross-browser compatibility. This is how I see the struggle for compatibility being won, because it's the way that 'appeals' to non-nerds (this isn't intended as a rebuttal to any of your points by the way).
Thanks for that information, especially the < tag thing, which I didn't know.
The main reason that I've got this attitude towards validation and standards is that I personally see html as more similar to language than to code. People who have absolutely no idea how a computer works are creating websites, and just as in the setting of a language spoken by millions, mistakes become common, and even become de facto standards. There's a good example of this in html even now - few people actually close br or img tags.
Then, with so many people using crap like FrontPage, you can even see what could be called dialects in their markup - for example, one WYSIWYG editor I've seen had a terrible addiction to p tags, which it seemed to use for everything.
So I say browsers are not to be treated like normal software. They have to 'communicate' with very normal people more and more, and as such, they need to become even better at dealing with what a bunch of dumbasses we all are.
So while I agree that good markup is definitely a good thing, and should be promoted, I see it as something like good grammar or spelling (you wouldn't be able to tell how much I'd thought about this kind of thing from the simple flame/counterflame I first posted). To be fair, I'd expect someone posting his site to Slashdot and asking about a rendering bug to have at least written half-decent markup, but that would be far too on-topic for a Slashdot discussion.
The doctype thing is slighy less reasoned than this. I endeavour to write acceptable html, and in my opinion, labellitlng my html as such (as 'html') should still be enough, since as a lot of people have said, the stuff that accounts for variations in code (including doctypes), shouldn't interfere with what already works. As well as that, the syntax of doctypes seriously pisses me off. I actually only put that bogus type there because I thought it was a neat idea, knowing full well how invalid it was.
Check my site's validation. You'll see 12 ridiculous errors from things like > characters whose position it disagrees with, and right now, a wikipedia url I pasted, which the validator decided to parse and rate. That and a childish remark about my html tag which was funny for the 1.3 seconds I spent writing the top line... that makes 12 errors that don't tell me anything useful or constructive at all. There's nothing wrong with my html. I put alt, width and height info in img tags, I escape br tags, except on slashdot I open and close p tags. I maintain a fairly strict 2 space indentation policy to make it readable. I keep data in the header in alphabetical order... I could go on... I test in links for the sake of blind visitors. I change my monitor config for the sake of 800x600 visitors (I don't usually support 640x400). I really don't see how I can be considered part of the problem.
Now check his site's validation. The 81 errors on the first page are "this tag shouldn't be here in this type of markup". Who even cares about doctypes anyway? As if browsers didn't decide for themselves how best to render the page anyway? At worst, it seems he should be labelling it as "html transitional" instead of "xhtml assrape-grade pedantic".
Ah, the beauty and grace of the rantings of a markup grammar nazi... The site renders fine in all but one browser, and you're blaming the writer of the site's code? If a browser like Firefox can handle it, then Opera, the official browser of the elitist, should render it fine. Your point is doubly stupid because of how contrived the bug is - the markup mistakes don't automatically imply this bizarre error in the rendering.
I'm not sure whether yours or the reply consisting entirely of a link to the w3c validation check of his site accompanied by a snide remark is the most pathetic. Having been through so many webpage layouts, in both tables and in css, one thing is crystal clear: rendering bugs are rarely related to invalid markup. In my experience, most of the time they are down to the combined effect of a few peculiarities in a particular browser or browser group. This fact has been proved and re-proved to me so many times that I've stopped using the validation check completely. I've barely been making websites a year, and even I've learned that on the web, markup standards are only a guideline. What's your excuse?
Your remark about Opera's strict adherence to XHTML standards demonstrates your complete ignorance on the subject of browsers as software. More so than almost any other kind of software, browsers absolutely *must* be capable of dealing with nonstandard input, invalid crap, and all kinds of other bizarre shit that gets sent to them. If opera mis-renders this site, it's Opera's problem too.
However, my first piece of advice to the thread starter would be to sort out his invalid code, but mainly because it's the easiest factor to remove from the equation, not because God hates invalid markup.
From my point of view, it's the best hack ever. Now to make this post appeal to the slashdot masses.... From my point of view, it's the best hack ever, you insensitive clod!
Morrowind reached the point of obsession for me. I built a beautiful thieves guild mod with hidden trapdoors to hideouts in each guild, plus a nice little extension to the balmora guild. My specialty was stealing. I stole everything, including that stupid heavy hammer that's of no real use whatsoever. I used to love coming up with newer and cleverer ways to steal. I used stealing to build a character with bought training, just to experience the parts of the game I was less interested in earning, and even that was worth it.
Even today, all this time later, I could easily fire Morrowind up and play it. I still do from time to time, but only on the Xbox since I moved 100% to Linux on the PC. I've even done the hacks necessary to run mods on the Xbox (if you're thinking of doing this, be aware that it does hurt framerate - they optimised the Xbox version quite well).
Only problem is that with so much intimacy with a game, you really start to see the flaws, and they really dig into the suspension of disbelief - Morrowind has some major freaky stuff that you don't notice at first. Even so, enjoy it while it lasts man, Morrowind is one of the best games I've ever played.
Just don't get into the vain habit of giving a shit about Tamriel Rebuilt. Those guys are extreme addiction cases.
It'd be pretty good in Portuguese too - eu is Portuguese for I - but for the fact that it's hard to stick the word I on the end of a phrase. Some creative subdirectories mixed with a cleverly put subdomain might be able to create something cool though.
It's odd that everyone so far has complained about the price of food at the cinema. It's a cinema! That's the place to watch films! If my local restaurant started running films, I'd expect that to cost a lot too.
My solution: if there's a film I want to see, I still don't buy their food. Welcome to capitalism!
Pointless idealism. The 'reponsible capitalist' is an image put forward as an ideal here every day. "Support things you like", posters demand. Waste of time. The entertainment economy is 100% controlled by the masses following the path of least resistance.
Slashdot Mirror
Me too. They've been going on about this internet thing like it's the Second Coming for years, and here I am, all these years later, still haven't used it, and I'm fine. I don't see what all the fuss can possibly be about if I can get along so well without it.
Nah, most internet users don't contribute a damn thing. The closest most come to providing content is the small minority who don't know how to stop their p2p clients from uploading back into the system.
It'll be no different from today: Microsoft and Sony will still be taking up 90% of the press attention with their wafer-thin attention grabbing B.S., with Nintendo continuing to take in profit by the truckload in the background. Graphics will continue to win ground against gameplay, and I will continue to buy less and less games. More companies will be bought by bigger companies as the price of producing a game is forced up by increasingly laughable production values.
By the way, the hands on approach is possible in other ways. I use Slackware and sometimes fuck with stuff too, but I get to be more intrepid than you because I've got less to lose, because when my system stops booting, it's back to normal after about an hour and a half of reinstallation.
sorry about that, screwed up the second link (I'm trying to make tea and post to /. at the same time)
Holy shit, I'm getting popups on Slashdot! Windows-targetted ones too!
Any insight anyone?
Welcome to Slashdot, where a call to not have a flamewar gets modded down as flamebait! Or is it opposites day again? I can never tell!
Does TPB index content by having spiders randomly follow links? I honestly don't know. If they don't, analogy destroyed.
- By Swedish, that guy can't have kids. What a dumbass!
- By Swedish, copying music is perfectly legal.
- By Swedish, they're going to make a new series of Futurama.
On a more serious note, why the fuck do all Swedish people always have such good English?You *shouldn't* be playing with the lights off in the first place.
Any hope of a standards-compliant web died when browsers began including code to deal with incorrect markup. As nice an idea as standards are (and I do support standards, even on my own site, and more than most), in practical terms, the real standard today is whether the top half a dozen browsers, most of which are different versions of Internet Explorer, can render your page correctly. Just as the real standard in natural language isn't whether the dictionary or the Oxford English dictionary or the Real Academia Española says something's right, but whether a speaker of that language says it is.
My page does actually validate now. I put a shorter doctype in, one that doesn't look too hacky, and put the character encoding meta tag back in. I had taken that out because it seems so incredibly unnecessary, but once you're already looking at the validator page, and there's one more error left, it's hard to resist.
Have you checked joe-baldwin.net? He's fixed it. His attitude towards validation is similar to mine - once it's rendering right, it's not as important. Which is strange, because my site validates perfectly and I don't know if it renders ok in Internet Explorer yet.
It's funny how that works out. The most invalid site I visit works really well in most browsers. Its only real bug is in Konqueror, where the forum list turns to mush. All because the guy in charge of it uses Firefox, and so he has to put at least the minimum of effort into cross-browser compatibility. This is how I see the struggle for compatibility being won, because it's the way that 'appeals' to non-nerds (this isn't intended as a rebuttal to any of your points by the way).
1. Error. Line 15 column 0: declaration does not allow for further comment.
The main reason that I've got this attitude towards validation and standards is that I personally see html as more similar to language than to code. People who have absolutely no idea how a computer works are creating websites, and just as in the setting of a language spoken by millions, mistakes become common, and even become de facto standards. There's a good example of this in html even now - few people actually close br or img tags.
Then, with so many people using crap like FrontPage, you can even see what could be called dialects in their markup - for example, one WYSIWYG editor I've seen had a terrible addiction to p tags, which it seemed to use for everything.
So I say browsers are not to be treated like normal software. They have to 'communicate' with very normal people more and more, and as such, they need to become even better at dealing with what a bunch of dumbasses we all are.
So while I agree that good markup is definitely a good thing, and should be promoted, I see it as something like good grammar or spelling (you wouldn't be able to tell how much I'd thought about this kind of thing from the simple flame/counterflame I first posted). To be fair, I'd expect someone posting his site to Slashdot and asking about a rendering bug to have at least written half-decent markup, but that would be far too on-topic for a Slashdot discussion.
The doctype thing is slighy less reasoned than this. I endeavour to write acceptable html, and in my opinion, labellitlng my html as such (as 'html') should still be enough, since as a lot of people have said, the stuff that accounts for variations in code (including doctypes), shouldn't interfere with what already works. As well as that, the syntax of doctypes seriously pisses me off. I actually only put that bogus type there because I thought it was a neat idea, knowing full well how invalid it was.
Now check his site's validation. The 81 errors on the first page are "this tag shouldn't be here in this type of markup". Who even cares about doctypes anyway? As if browsers didn't decide for themselves how best to render the page anyway? At worst, it seems he should be labelling it as "html transitional" instead of "xhtml assrape-grade pedantic".
I'm not sure whether yours or the reply consisting entirely of a link to the w3c validation check of his site accompanied by a snide remark is the most pathetic. Having been through so many webpage layouts, in both tables and in css, one thing is crystal clear: rendering bugs are rarely related to invalid markup. In my experience, most of the time they are down to the combined effect of a few peculiarities in a particular browser or browser group. This fact has been proved and re-proved to me so many times that I've stopped using the validation check completely. I've barely been making websites a year, and even I've learned that on the web, markup standards are only a guideline. What's your excuse?
Your remark about Opera's strict adherence to XHTML standards demonstrates your complete ignorance on the subject of browsers as software. More so than almost any other kind of software, browsers absolutely *must* be capable of dealing with nonstandard input, invalid crap, and all kinds of other bizarre shit that gets sent to them. If opera mis-renders this site, it's Opera's problem too.
However, my first piece of advice to the thread starter would be to sort out his invalid code, but mainly because it's the easiest factor to remove from the equation, not because God hates invalid markup.
From my point of view, it's the best hack ever.
Now to make this post appeal to the slashdot masses.... From my point of view, it's the best hack ever, you insensitive clod!
Even today, all this time later, I could easily fire Morrowind up and play it. I still do from time to time, but only on the Xbox since I moved 100% to Linux on the PC. I've even done the hacks necessary to run mods on the Xbox (if you're thinking of doing this, be aware that it does hurt framerate - they optimised the Xbox version quite well).
Only problem is that with so much intimacy with a game, you really start to see the flaws, and they really dig into the suspension of disbelief - Morrowind has some major freaky stuff that you don't notice at first. Even so, enjoy it while it lasts man, Morrowind is one of the best games I've ever played.
Just don't get into the vain habit of giving a shit about Tamriel Rebuilt. Those guys are extreme addiction cases.
It'd be pretty good in Portuguese too - eu is Portuguese for I - but for the fact that it's hard to stick the word I on the end of a phrase. Some creative subdirectories mixed with a cleverly put subdomain might be able to create something cool though.
For the record, this post was intended as a joke. Most of the mods missed the point completely.
My solution: if there's a film I want to see, I still don't buy their food. Welcome to capitalism!
I know they do'n't spelcheck articlez, but this is rediculus!
Pointless idealism. The 'reponsible capitalist' is an image put forward as an ideal here every day. "Support things you like", posters demand. Waste of time. The entertainment economy is 100% controlled by the masses following the path of least resistance.
Perhaps my blaming skills would be better directed at the telcos instead. Just as long as I get to blame someone real hard, I'm happy.
That's not bandwidth based. That's a flat rate plus a limit. Shafted two times over.