Being implimented completely according to standard, CSS still has major issues. I am not talking about broken implimentation. I am talking only about the standard itself. It is taylor-made to a very specific style of web page, and works much less across multiple browsers and systems not because of problems with implimentation (not to completely deny that problem, I'm just saying that even with consistent implimentations, these problems exist) but rather because CSS lacks some very fundamental concepts of layout and design which are essential for ensuring a page renders well across multiple resolutions, and much more importantly, things which would be required to allow variable content to render well using a single stylesheet.
CSS in its current form absolutely chokes on dynamic content. It absolutely chokes if one applies the slightest change to text size, image size, basically CSS is completely worthless for dynamic content unless you are making a very specific look for your web site which the W3C had in mind when working on the standard.
An AC linked to CSS Zen Garden. This site is a perfect example of how horrible CSS is. The site shows a list of many stylesheets all showing the exact same text. Text which never gets too short, never too long, because these sheets were designed for the exact text.
"secure" would mean that it can resist someone who wants to access whatever it's protecting. If you had an army gaurding the contents of a cardboard box, the box itself would not provide any noteable security benifit. The contents may be secure, but not because of the box. If the box were full of goose shit, and forget about the army, the box itself does not provide any security. The only reason no one has stolen the goose shit is that no one wants the goose shit.
Flamebait... do I need to put "!!OPINION!!" in order for people to realize that I'm talking about my opinions? I'm not stating this as fact. These are my opinions and microsoft is not evil for sharing them. They are evil for all sorts of things unrelated to CSS (*this does not include the msn stunt they pulled, which I was never able to confirm, but the way it was reported I'm pretty sure they meant to do it)
Look, I'm a big fan of the concept behind CSS, but it completely fucking sucks and IE has done everyone a service by allowing people to make web pages that look the way they want them to, rather than tying them to a standard that's been written with contradictory ideals in mind. Microsoft picked one: make it possible to make things that look however you want on their specific browser. There's nothing evil about letting people make pages that look good, even if it does shut out people who choose to work for openness and ease of implimentation instead of actually trying to let people display what they want.
I expect CSS will be truely wonderful by the time version 4 or 5 comes around, but in the mean time, you dont get to complain when the big companies refuse to impliment that thing you made up. If MS thought 100% correct CSS implimentation would make their product work better, they would do it. I expect they will do it in the future, but simply making something "open" doesnt mean "and everyone who doesnt think it's the best way to do something is evil and being anti-competative"
how the fuck is that fucking flamebait? FUCK YOU. I am not trying to piss anyone off, I am just calling whoever did this a fucking idiot. I am not trying to start a flame war. If you moderated the above post you are a MORON. There is no flamebait here because there can be no discussion. It is fucking FACT.
what does a "message queue" do for them that everyone on slashdot hasnt implimented already when they needed to recieve things at a variable rate? I mean, ibm.com said it's not just a FIFO stack, but all you have described sounds like reading and writing to a database- what's so special about that? What's so special about adding priorities so that (for example) your payments kick in before your deductions? Is this article about them having made a database server? is that what this is? I still have no idea what's amazing about it.
I'm not bashing or anything like that, I just dont think I have any idea what they're talking about.
What is a message queue, why should I care, what does this have to do with anything, what are they talking about? In short: what kinds of messages are we talking about, what are sending them to what, and why do we need to queue them?
"A message queue is a queue onto which messages can be placed." thanks a fucking lot google
It might make it remotely useful, if it did. As someone who tries to use P2P legally, I find it annoying that sometimes months after downloading something, I find that it wasnt some independent legally distributed music, but rather some well-known artist I'd just never heard of. (at that point sometimes I delete, sometimes I buy) What they've instead released is a useless tool designed to create fear through absolute blatant lies.
What ever happened to the good old days where someone could make millions off the work of others and not pay them anything for it because those others never did something which only professionals do? *(See, he's not a professional, since his work was stolen. You need to be paid to be a professional)
Please note that all those Open Source programs which are protected only by copyright law are only being horded by you greedy bastards! Anyone who wants to should be able to use your code without your permission, close it up, sell it in their product without any source or even bothering to mention who made it. I mean it's not like you actually filed for copyright, you obviously meant "public domain" when you said "GPL"
due to the rest of the sentence (..."authors and inventors"), any copyright extending beyond the lifetime of an author is unconstitutional. This wouldnt be the case if it were a flat time period which someone may or may not outlive, but the law specifically grants copyright for years after the author is dead. This is unconstitutional because it means copyright is not granted for a limited time to the author, it is instead granted for an unlimited time to the author and for a limited time to whoever inherits the work.
isnt one of google's greatest strengths the ability to rank things based on how real people are talking about it? ("how" meaning "the fact that"). Greatest strengths can often be the greatest weakness as well. It's not good to plug the weakness by getting rid of the strength entirely. This will help the sites which use these tags, good for google for providing an "opt-out" to get rid of spammers. But this will only serve to hurt google, it seems. Spammers will simply move to other sites, and google loses some of the legitimate posts to go with it. Many places, I can only assume, earned their high rankings by having people actually talking about how good they are. Where the fuck else would common people talk about this stuff? Doesnt this break the entire ranking-by-link system concept?
Now if google had a way to eliminate dead-ends when searching for an answer, that would be great:) ("Register now to see the answer!", "I have that same problem, no clue.", "No, dont know what you're talking about", "This is the wrong board to ask that question", etc)
so if I really liked, well, cheetos let's say, I could camp out in front of a WalMart (which has thousands of locations) for 139 days waiting for Cheetos (which will never be scarce), and that won't be stupid because it's just showing my dedication?
Doing something which has zero benifit to anyone including yourself does not show any dedication. If tickets were scarce, if that was the only theater showing the movie, if you couldnt get tickets online faster using a one-line bash script and cron, in short if this somehow placed his ability to get a good seat for the opening showing of Star Wars anywhere above, say, the person who shows up ten minutes before showtime and winds up in line immediately behind this idiot.
You know what else works? Get a fucking job. At the theater. 139 days of that and you can not only garantee yourself the best seat on the opening showing, but you wont be a drain on the movie industry in the mean time.
Other than the obvious, campouts are stupid because Tickets for the opening showing on opening day are not at all and will not become hard to come by. This guy is supposed to be a nerd, and yet he's doing something so obsolete as to wait in line for a physical ticket. Lines are for the past. Have fun when you can't even get in once the place is open because everyone smarter than you went to Fandango.
Do you have some other word for billions of tiny particles clumping together at random? What is the agenda behind your being a fucking moron who should shut up?
Slashdot Mirror
Called it. When I was eight. I'm obviously a medical genius.
Being implimented completely according to standard, CSS still has major issues. I am not talking about broken implimentation. I am talking only about the standard itself. It is taylor-made to a very specific style of web page, and works much less across multiple browsers and systems not because of problems with implimentation (not to completely deny that problem, I'm just saying that even with consistent implimentations, these problems exist) but rather because CSS lacks some very fundamental concepts of layout and design which are essential for ensuring a page renders well across multiple resolutions, and much more importantly, things which would be required to allow variable content to render well using a single stylesheet.
CSS in its current form absolutely chokes on dynamic content. It absolutely chokes if one applies the slightest change to text size, image size, basically CSS is completely worthless for dynamic content unless you are making a very specific look for your web site which the W3C had in mind when working on the standard.
An AC linked to CSS Zen Garden. This site is a perfect example of how horrible CSS is. The site shows a list of many stylesheets all showing the exact same text. Text which never gets too short, never too long, because these sheets were designed for the exact text.
"secure" would mean that it can resist someone who wants to access whatever it's protecting.
If you had an army gaurding the contents of a cardboard box, the box itself would not provide any noteable security benifit. The contents may be secure, but not because of the box.
If the box were full of goose shit, and forget about the army, the box itself does not provide any security. The only reason no one has stolen the goose shit is that no one wants the goose shit.
in your blood-powered car
Flamebait... do I need to put "!!OPINION!!" in order for people to realize that I'm talking about my opinions? I'm not stating this as fact. These are my opinions and microsoft is not evil for sharing them. They are evil for all sorts of things unrelated to CSS (*this does not include the msn stunt they pulled, which I was never able to confirm, but the way it was reported I'm pretty sure they meant to do it)
apparently so. I mean, they knew what the top news story would be on April 1st before it happened, didnt they?
this ad isnt stupid because of potential tsunami donations. This ad is stupid for the same reason such donations are stupid.
OMG!! THAT MEANS IT'S SECURE!!!
lowercase.lowercase.lowercase
Look, I'm a big fan of the concept behind CSS, but it completely fucking sucks and IE has done everyone a service by allowing people to make web pages that look the way they want them to, rather than tying them to a standard that's been written with contradictory ideals in mind. Microsoft picked one: make it possible to make things that look however you want on their specific browser. There's nothing evil about letting people make pages that look good, even if it does shut out people who choose to work for openness and ease of implimentation instead of actually trying to let people display what they want.
I expect CSS will be truely wonderful by the time version 4 or 5 comes around, but in the mean time, you dont get to complain when the big companies refuse to impliment that thing you made up. If MS thought 100% correct CSS implimentation would make their product work better, they would do it. I expect they will do it in the future, but simply making something "open" doesnt mean "and everyone who doesnt think it's the best way to do something is evil and being anti-competative"
how the fuck is that fucking flamebait? FUCK YOU. I am not trying to piss anyone off, I am just calling whoever did this a fucking idiot. I am not trying to start a flame war. If you moderated the above post you are a MORON. There is no flamebait here because there can be no discussion. It is fucking FACT.
what does a "message queue" do for them that everyone on slashdot hasnt implimented already when they needed to recieve things at a variable rate? I mean, ibm.com said it's not just a FIFO stack, but all you have described sounds like reading and writing to a database- what's so special about that? What's so special about adding priorities so that (for example) your payments kick in before your deductions?
Is this article about them having made a database server? is that what this is? I still have no idea what's amazing about it.
I'm not bashing or anything like that, I just dont think I have any idea what they're talking about.
who the fuck moderated this funny? This is an actual fucking question, assholes.
What is a message queue, why should I care, what does this have to do with anything, what are they talking about? In short: what kinds of messages are we talking about, what are sending them to what, and why do we need to queue them?
"A message queue is a queue onto which messages can be placed."
thanks a fucking lot google
those people have more than six computers in their homes.
I tried to write a smartass and sarcastic comment, but that just seems like a waste of effort:
You are an idiot, please die.
It might make it remotely useful, if it did.
As someone who tries to use P2P legally, I find it annoying that sometimes months after downloading something, I find that it wasnt some independent legally distributed music, but rather some well-known artist I'd just never heard of. (at that point sometimes I delete, sometimes I buy)
What they've instead released is a useless tool designed to create fear through absolute blatant lies.
"Idiot soon to release shitty product!"
"So?"
"It's brand-named NEW STANDARD!!!"
"HOLYFUCKSHITBATMAN!!!!!!!!!!!SUBMIT NOW!"
What ever happened to the good old days where someone could make millions off the work of others and not pay them anything for it because those others never did something which only professionals do? *(See, he's not a professional, since his work was stolen. You need to be paid to be a professional)
Please note that all those Open Source programs which are protected only by copyright law are only being horded by you greedy bastards! Anyone who wants to should be able to use your code without your permission, close it up, sell it in their product without any source or even bothering to mention who made it. I mean it's not like you actually filed for copyright, you obviously meant "public domain" when you said "GPL"
due to the rest of the sentence (..."authors and inventors"), any copyright extending beyond the lifetime of an author is unconstitutional. This wouldnt be the case if it were a flat time period which someone may or may not outlive, but the law specifically grants copyright for years after the author is dead. This is unconstitutional because it means copyright is not granted for a limited time to the author, it is instead granted for an unlimited time to the author and for a limited time to whoever inherits the work.
isnt one of google's greatest strengths the ability to rank things based on how real people are talking about it? ("how" meaning "the fact that").
:) ("Register now to see the answer!", "I have that same problem, no clue.", "No, dont know what you're talking about", "This is the wrong board to ask that question", etc)
:)
Greatest strengths can often be the greatest weakness as well. It's not good to plug the weakness by getting rid of the strength entirely.
This will help the sites which use these tags, good for google for providing an "opt-out" to get rid of spammers.
But this will only serve to hurt google, it seems. Spammers will simply move to other sites, and google loses some of the legitimate posts to go with it. Many places, I can only assume, earned their high rankings by having people actually talking about how good they are. Where the fuck else would common people talk about this stuff? Doesnt this break the entire ranking-by-link system concept?
Now if google had a way to eliminate dead-ends when searching for an answer, that would be great
come on, scientists!
so if I really liked, well, cheetos let's say, I could camp out in front of a WalMart (which has thousands of locations) for 139 days waiting for Cheetos (which will never be scarce), and that won't be stupid because it's just showing my dedication?
Doing something which has zero benifit to anyone including yourself does not show any dedication. If tickets were scarce, if that was the only theater showing the movie, if you couldnt get tickets online faster using a one-line bash script and cron, in short if this somehow placed his ability to get a good seat for the opening showing of Star Wars anywhere above, say, the person who shows up ten minutes before showtime and winds up in line immediately behind this idiot.
You know what else works? Get a fucking job.
At the theater.
139 days of that and you can not only garantee yourself the best seat on the opening showing, but you wont be a drain on the movie industry in the mean time.
Other than the obvious, campouts are stupid because Tickets for the opening showing on opening day are not at all and will not become hard to come by. This guy is supposed to be a nerd, and yet he's doing something so obsolete as to wait in line for a physical ticket.
Lines are for the past. Have fun when you can't even get in once the place is open because everyone smarter than you went to Fandango.
people with quite a few braincells would call the entire planet, before life was on it, nothing more than dust.
But then, you are a fucking moron who should shut up, so I guess you wouldnt make that connection.
OH BOY! MY REGULAR TOASTER DOESNT DO THAT! It uses old fasioned radient heat energy! Infrared beams now! Yay! High-tech shit!
Do you have some other word for billions of tiny particles clumping together at random? What is the agenda behind your being a fucking moron who should shut up?