Your #1 end year is way, way off. This really ended around the time the Mozilla project started releasing stable builds. The current web standards movement really gained steam around this time, and the web development culture overall had been undergoing a transformation toward what it reflects almost across the board today: standards, semantics, and progressive enhancement are of utmost importance. Interoperability comes from the latter, and IE 6 was treated as a legacy product with special needs.
It *looked* like the de facto standard for much longer because it continued to receive grudging support in recognition of usage statistics. As we've seen its usage share plummeting, so too we've seen this support decline. But you'd scarcely hear a developer refer to IE 6 as a reference client for the better part of a decade.
Whut. The standard theory is that most IE 6 traffic is from corporate deployments, as corporations have the most invested in web applications targeting IE 6 as a platform, and as the traffic tends to die off pretty significantly off business hours. Does this correlation hold for spammers? What exactly do you mean by spammers?
That said, it's still a statistic that can be molded to different policies if a web outfit chooses. There are a lot of reasons why a site may neglect its corporate users, not the least of which being that they don't necessarily generate revenues significant enough to justify the development efforts. But more than that, with good progressive enhancement techniques, it's quite reasonable to provide a working implementation to IE 6 without all the bells and whistles. And since, in my experience, a lot of IE 7 fixes trickle down to IE 6, it's not such a crazy investment in effort.
Not to defend the horrifically long method name from the parent, but yours does omit something: the method name itself describes its argument. This is "redundant" in use, but only after the fact. For whatever it's worth, primaryView.put(ResultsBox->icon), where primaryView is only meant to put SearchBox->textPane, is not an obvious error.
It would certainly seem to be a defect of some sort, if it doesn't allow a user to choose a location whose jurisdiction allows its time policies to differ from the location the user is forced to choose instead. It's not a problem where the policies coincide, but it certainly becomes one where the policies diverge.
Considering the vast differences in speed for even "text content" between the current IE release and, well, all of the current competitors, the optimization is well-received by web developers. Never mind the fact that many of us are doing work besides "text content".
And JavaScript may not be the best candidate for high performance, but I'm genuinely curious what makes it "subpar". I quite like it.
Why would Adobe *fix* bugs? They're hard at work on a new version, with entirely new bugs. And you can pay $500+ for the privilege of being in their testing department, knowing crash reports get sent straight to/dev/null.
Have I ever had consensual sex for exactly $0 and without any commitment? Absolutely! Every single time I've ever had sex. And in cases where there may have been some kind of doubt—where, for instance, I had been generous at some earlier point in the evening and for instance treated my partner to a drink—I have always, and honestly, insistedthat I don't have any expectations "in kind".
I don't know what this little exchange and the attendant mod scores say about the average Slashdot poster/reader, but it is disturbing. But fine, I'll play.
You say that one "usually wants to spend some time with the lady first"; usually, yes. It doesn't follow that spending money while spending time means she's charging you for sex. You either want to spend the time or you don't. And if you don't want to, but go and spend the money with an expectation that you'll be rewarded with pussy in return, the consensual sex ship has already sailed. You're engaging in a manipulative financial negotiation which almost definitely is not your partner's intention. And if you think it is, you deserve whatever shrewd, manipulative mate you end up with.
I dunno. I'm far to the left of all of that, and given the spectrum of uptight, sold out shills, I'd rather fuck a Republican, frankly. At least they have kinks to lie about.
That explains why everyone on the Internet seems like a sock puppet for one of a handful of personalities. But it doesn't explain how so few people generate so much stupid, useless content.
I'd wager that the vast majority of people who even care about browser usage share statistics are concerned about rendering engines (and their capabilities), not which window chrome they're wrapped in. And with Chrome dropping H.264, for all intents and purposes all of the [desktop] WebKit/V8 browsers *are* Chrome, somewhere along the release schedules. Likewise, all of the [desktop] WebKit/JavaScriptCore browsers *are* Safari, all of the [desktop] Gecko browsers *are* Firefox, and all of the Trident browsers *are* IE, each somewhere along their respective release schedules. And of course each of their respective mobile counterparts have some serious capability differences, but substituting [mobile] for [desktop] would yield the same results. And apart from the WebKit split, if any one of their parent companies screws the pooch, the engine is likely to need to find a new benefactor to remain current. Thankfully, for the sake of choice, all of those parent companies are wildly successful and will probably be irrelevant in the browser engine world before they go tits up.
Interestingly, the WebKit split has has a curious effect in terms of direction for new capabilities, in that where Apple and Google find consensus they tend to wield a lot more influence on the other engine developers than either would with different engines. If Apple and Google both release a -webkit-blowjob CSS extension, it's almost a guarantee that the next major version of each engine will be giving us e-blowjobs. And if Google could convince Apple to support WebM, the fight over web video standards would be over in an instant.
It's fair to quote Marx, and especially Engels, on this subject because they form a contextual basis to understand historical socialist theory. But it's not fair to imply that they characterize the socialist political program today, nor have for many decades. The Leninist line guides active socialist (not left-communist) agenda, and is unabashedly statist. It's also unfair to say that bolsheviks and nazis are indistinguishable, but at least here it leaves the realm of the laughable and enters the realm of nitpicking. Currently practiced socialist politics are unquestionably authoritarian. If you directly interrogate on the specific outbursts of this, where they had been politically and morally weak and might have learned lessons—for instance, Kronstadt—they will defend authoritarianism wholeheartedly. They're a bit more ashamed about their role in Spain, but still unapologetic.
The anarchist/left-communist critique of socialism was undeniably valid: a dictatorship of the proletariat cannot ever be anything but a misnomer, and will never be wrung—except, hypothetically, by bloody struggle—from the power-hungry. Socialism is for the opportunists.
I want to clarify that I was making a joke (and thereby ruin it). h4rr4r said, "The NAZIs are about as National Socialist as North Korea is the Democratic Peoples Republic." The implication is that, since DPRK is neither democratic, belonging (in action) to its people, nor a republic, the national socialists were neither national nor socialist. My joke was that they certainly were national, for a certain deranged concept of "nation".
I think, within that deranged national context, it's arguable that the nazis were "socialist" at least to the same degree the bolsheviks were. The state did ultimately claim ownership of the people and resources, as did the bolshevik state; the difference (within the "national" context) was hardly an economic one, but a political one, and largely on the basis of realpolitik. The nazis, in the context of a Germany which had been relatively free and open, calculated that it would be easier to manage a mixed economy than a command economy. And they were probably right.
But I didn't advance that argument, because it's a tough sell (and I hardly feel strongly about it) and I didn't want to detract from the humor. Instead, I undermined that argument and deliberately conceded that the nazis were not socialist—but they were definitely "national".
Even if your perspective is well to the right of the "rest of the world", surely, unless you're prepared to admit you're a true fascist, you can appreciate that a representative diversity of political opinion promotes a healthier society. Insofar as I believe that the American population isn't *yet* so deranged as to be totally politically homogenized, I sincerely doubt that those of us on the US left aren't such a disproportionately small minority as to warrant no real representation. You'll also note that there isn't a left-wing homogeny anywhere in the world; those states with a real and active left also have a wide range of opinions on the right in all sorts of ways.
It does if a screen "point" is calculated as 1/72 "inch" and your graphics system is hard-coded to some fraction of pixels/"inch". Which is the case for most if not all of us.
It may be that was AC's point, in which case I take back my snotty Bill Hicks quote, but usually when Jordan is used as the retort to a defense of Palestinians, it's because many Zionists assert to this day that *Jordan* is "the Palestinian state". This is often coupled with "your map is missing the rest of the Muslim World" or "your map is missing the rest of the Arab World" or "your map is missing the expulsion of Jews from the rest of the Middle East", all of which are completely beside the point besides being either racist or needlessly reductionist or both.
Again, if I misinterpreted the AC, I take it back.
It's treated as a condition imposed upon Palestinians because no one expects the same of Israel, which not only bears the responsibility for the majority of the violence (both the direct responsibility of engaging in the majority of it as well as the moral responsibility as aggressors) but is the only party with the means to actually prevent it. Apart from the collaborationist PA, which is a US-Israel trained and endorsed counter-insurgency militia that operates in a tiny section of the West Bank, Palestinians have been systematically denied the functional accoutrements of a state that would be necessary to even begin to meet the completely immoral demand that they stifle their own population's resistance to aggression while the aggressors refuse any kind of peace, even that offered by their most belligerent foes.
Side note: I'm sure you don't realize how appropriate your use of the word "savages" is, but it might be worth thinking about.
The problem with this argument is that it's two issues bundled up as one, and it obscures the actual relevance of the entire "right to exist" conception. It is one thing to say that a *nation* (that is, a people, not a political organization) has a right to exist; to deny this is to condone genocide. It's quite a different thing to say that a *state* has a right to exist. Israel is the only *state* which claims a right to exist and demands that its co-belligerents declare their support for such a calculation. The rejection of that right is not a rejection of any nation, but of the *Jewish state* as a political entity. The "right to exist", as declared by nations (including the Palestinians) is not an assertion of the right of any political entity, but the right of a cultural group to remain unmolested in their existence and mutual identification as such.
To deny this right, as above, is to condone genocide. It's to say that a people can be justifiably eliminated, whether by extermination or by severance. States are artificial constructs created opportunistically for the maintenance of certain political prerogatives; they have *no* rights except by consensus. Nations are living social constructs that form the foundation of human cohabitation; to propose that their elimination by force can be justified is to ensure destruction and misery.
Slashdot Mirror
Your #1 end year is way, way off. This really ended around the time the Mozilla project started releasing stable builds. The current web standards movement really gained steam around this time, and the web development culture overall had been undergoing a transformation toward what it reflects almost across the board today: standards, semantics, and progressive enhancement are of utmost importance. Interoperability comes from the latter, and IE 6 was treated as a legacy product with special needs.
It *looked* like the de facto standard for much longer because it continued to receive grudging support in recognition of usage statistics. As we've seen its usage share plummeting, so too we've seen this support decline. But you'd scarcely hear a developer refer to IE 6 as a reference client for the better part of a decade.
Whut. The standard theory is that most IE 6 traffic is from corporate deployments, as corporations have the most invested in web applications targeting IE 6 as a platform, and as the traffic tends to die off pretty significantly off business hours. Does this correlation hold for spammers? What exactly do you mean by spammers?
That said, it's still a statistic that can be molded to different policies if a web outfit chooses. There are a lot of reasons why a site may neglect its corporate users, not the least of which being that they don't necessarily generate revenues significant enough to justify the development efforts. But more than that, with good progressive enhancement techniques, it's quite reasonable to provide a working implementation to IE 6 without all the bells and whistles. And since, in my experience, a lot of IE 7 fixes trickle down to IE 6, it's not such a crazy investment in effort.
Not to defend the horrifically long method name from the parent, but yours does omit something: the method name itself describes its argument. This is "redundant" in use, but only after the fact. For whatever it's worth, primaryView.put(ResultsBox->icon), where primaryView is only meant to put SearchBox->textPane, is not an obvious error.
From the parent comment, it sounds as if Scotland can reject the change, thereby no longer using the same time policies as the UK.
It would certainly seem to be a defect of some sort, if it doesn't allow a user to choose a location whose jurisdiction allows its time policies to differ from the location the user is forced to choose instead. It's not a problem where the policies coincide, but it certainly becomes one where the policies diverge.
Considering the vast differences in speed for even "text content" between the current IE release and, well, all of the current competitors, the optimization is well-received by web developers. Never mind the fact that many of us are doing work besides "text content".
And JavaScript may not be the best candidate for high performance, but I'm genuinely curious what makes it "subpar". I quite like it.
So is Windows, but they keep selling it anyway.
Why would Adobe *fix* bugs? They're hard at work on a new version, with entirely new bugs. And you can pay $500+ for the privilege of being in their testing department, knowing crash reports get sent straight to /dev/null.
Have I ever had consensual sex for exactly $0 and without any commitment? Absolutely! Every single time I've ever had sex. And in cases where there may have been some kind of doubt—where, for instance, I had been generous at some earlier point in the evening and for instance treated my partner to a drink—I have always, and honestly, insistedthat I don't have any expectations "in kind".
I don't know what this little exchange and the attendant mod scores say about the average Slashdot poster/reader, but it is disturbing. But fine, I'll play.
You say that one "usually wants to spend some time with the lady first"; usually, yes. It doesn't follow that spending money while spending time means she's charging you for sex. You either want to spend the time or you don't. And if you don't want to, but go and spend the money with an expectation that you'll be rewarded with pussy in return, the consensual sex ship has already sailed. You're engaging in a manipulative financial negotiation which almost definitely is not your partner's intention. And if you think it is, you deserve whatever shrewd, manipulative mate you end up with.
Testing manually or testing man pages?
I dunno. I'm far to the left of all of that, and given the spectrum of uptight, sold out shills, I'd rather fuck a Republican, frankly. At least they have kinks to lie about.
Have you ever had consensual sex?
That explains why everyone on the Internet seems like a sock puppet for one of a handful of personalities. But it doesn't explain how so few people generate so much stupid, useless content.
I'd wager that the vast majority of people who even care about browser usage share statistics are concerned about rendering engines (and their capabilities), not which window chrome they're wrapped in. And with Chrome dropping H.264, for all intents and purposes all of the [desktop] WebKit/V8 browsers *are* Chrome, somewhere along the release schedules. Likewise, all of the [desktop] WebKit/JavaScriptCore browsers *are* Safari, all of the [desktop] Gecko browsers *are* Firefox, and all of the Trident browsers *are* IE, each somewhere along their respective release schedules. And of course each of their respective mobile counterparts have some serious capability differences, but substituting [mobile] for [desktop] would yield the same results. And apart from the WebKit split, if any one of their parent companies screws the pooch, the engine is likely to need to find a new benefactor to remain current. Thankfully, for the sake of choice, all of those parent companies are wildly successful and will probably be irrelevant in the browser engine world before they go tits up.
Interestingly, the WebKit split has has a curious effect in terms of direction for new capabilities, in that where Apple and Google find consensus they tend to wield a lot more influence on the other engine developers than either would with different engines. If Apple and Google both release a -webkit-blowjob CSS extension, it's almost a guarantee that the next major version of each engine will be giving us e-blowjobs. And if Google could convince Apple to support WebM, the fight over web video standards would be over in an instant.
I am sure (and afraid) I'll be corrected, but I'm sure I haven't heard of any modern usage of the rack.
It's fair to quote Marx, and especially Engels, on this subject because they form a contextual basis to understand historical socialist theory. But it's not fair to imply that they characterize the socialist political program today, nor have for many decades. The Leninist line guides active socialist (not left-communist) agenda, and is unabashedly statist. It's also unfair to say that bolsheviks and nazis are indistinguishable, but at least here it leaves the realm of the laughable and enters the realm of nitpicking. Currently practiced socialist politics are unquestionably authoritarian. If you directly interrogate on the specific outbursts of this, where they had been politically and morally weak and might have learned lessons—for instance, Kronstadt—they will defend authoritarianism wholeheartedly. They're a bit more ashamed about their role in Spain, but still unapologetic.
The anarchist/left-communist critique of socialism was undeniably valid: a dictatorship of the proletariat cannot ever be anything but a misnomer, and will never be wrung—except, hypothetically, by bloody struggle—from the power-hungry. Socialism is for the opportunists.
Did you even read my comment before responding?
I want to clarify that I was making a joke (and thereby ruin it). h4rr4r said, "The NAZIs are about as National Socialist as North Korea is the Democratic Peoples Republic." The implication is that, since DPRK is neither democratic, belonging (in action) to its people, nor a republic, the national socialists were neither national nor socialist. My joke was that they certainly were national, for a certain deranged concept of "nation".
I think, within that deranged national context, it's arguable that the nazis were "socialist" at least to the same degree the bolsheviks were. The state did ultimately claim ownership of the people and resources, as did the bolshevik state; the difference (within the "national" context) was hardly an economic one, but a political one, and largely on the basis of realpolitik. The nazis, in the context of a Germany which had been relatively free and open, calculated that it would be easier to manage a mixed economy than a command economy. And they were probably right.
But I didn't advance that argument, because it's a tough sell (and I hardly feel strongly about it) and I didn't want to detract from the humor. Instead, I undermined that argument and deliberately conceded that the nazis were not socialist—but they were definitely "national".
Even if your perspective is well to the right of the "rest of the world", surely, unless you're prepared to admit you're a true fascist, you can appreciate that a representative diversity of political opinion promotes a healthier society. Insofar as I believe that the American population isn't *yet* so deranged as to be totally politically homogenized, I sincerely doubt that those of us on the US left aren't such a disproportionately small minority as to warrant no real representation. You'll also note that there isn't a left-wing homogeny anywhere in the world; those states with a real and active left also have a wide range of opinions on the right in all sorts of ways.
That's not entirely fair. The nazis were certainly nationally oriented, for a certain extremely restrictive conception of nation.
Well, I guess I stand corrected. It's the case for nearly all of us.
It does if a screen "point" is calculated as 1/72 "inch" and your graphics system is hard-coded to some fraction of pixels/"inch". Which is the case for most if not all of us.
This design is so horrible it even got the first comment out of order!!!1
Er, I make my own fun. Carry on.
It may be that was AC's point, in which case I take back my snotty Bill Hicks quote, but usually when Jordan is used as the retort to a defense of Palestinians, it's because many Zionists assert to this day that *Jordan* is "the Palestinian state". This is often coupled with "your map is missing the rest of the Muslim World" or "your map is missing the rest of the Arab World" or "your map is missing the expulsion of Jews from the rest of the Middle East", all of which are completely beside the point besides being either racist or needlessly reductionist or both.
Again, if I misinterpreted the AC, I take it back.
It's treated as a condition imposed upon Palestinians because no one expects the same of Israel, which not only bears the responsibility for the majority of the violence (both the direct responsibility of engaging in the majority of it as well as the moral responsibility as aggressors) but is the only party with the means to actually prevent it. Apart from the collaborationist PA, which is a US-Israel trained and endorsed counter-insurgency militia that operates in a tiny section of the West Bank, Palestinians have been systematically denied the functional accoutrements of a state that would be necessary to even begin to meet the completely immoral demand that they stifle their own population's resistance to aggression while the aggressors refuse any kind of peace, even that offered by their most belligerent foes.
Side note: I'm sure you don't realize how appropriate your use of the word "savages" is, but it might be worth thinking about.
The problem with this argument is that it's two issues bundled up as one, and it obscures the actual relevance of the entire "right to exist" conception. It is one thing to say that a *nation* (that is, a people, not a political organization) has a right to exist; to deny this is to condone genocide. It's quite a different thing to say that a *state* has a right to exist. Israel is the only *state* which claims a right to exist and demands that its co-belligerents declare their support for such a calculation. The rejection of that right is not a rejection of any nation, but of the *Jewish state* as a political entity. The "right to exist", as declared by nations (including the Palestinians) is not an assertion of the right of any political entity, but the right of a cultural group to remain unmolested in their existence and mutual identification as such.
To deny this right, as above, is to condone genocide. It's to say that a people can be justifiably eliminated, whether by extermination or by severance. States are artificial constructs created opportunistically for the maintenance of certain political prerogatives; they have *no* rights except by consensus. Nations are living social constructs that form the foundation of human cohabitation; to propose that their elimination by force can be justified is to ensure destruction and misery.