The problem, of course, is that the same guys doing the codewriting are the same guys doing the naming and marketing
This is why Ubuntu is so popular now - the same marketdroids making all those flashy "cool" names for Microsoft apps also have control over how the software is written.
You can't make smaller, higher resolution screens for the desktop, because the average Windows user will start complaining that their screen space is being "stolen" or something equally idiotic. Similarly the laptop LCDs have to be tiny 160dpi postage stamps, because that's what they've been trained to think is correct.
I bought one of those TVs. They're 1680x1050 physically, everything else is scaled. Also the EDID is broken so you have to jump through hoops to get the native resolution.
That's because a large amount of commercial music these days is just covering someone else's work, or sampling it. They didn't actually make the good part themselves.
That's an interesting thing... the power supply has more potential to cause damage than anything else in the PC, but nobody ever thinks about protecting against its failure. Makes me wonder why we don't have surge protectors on the 5/12V rails as standard yet.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have an only-scan-on-write feature for executable files? No sense checking them when they're read if they get exec'ed 30 times a day and updated only once a month.
Also, there is no way they're going to stick with the name "Rage". I believe they learned once before that you need to use your engine as a marketing tool by tying it to your identity as a business and not calling it something obscure.
You mean by calling it something like... I dunno, "id Tech 5"?
HTML 5 is based on the DOM. The HTML4-compatible syntax is defined from scratch, it isn't based on SGML because no web browser actually parses SGML correctly. Most of them don't do HTML4.01 fully for that matter (IE doesn't do simple things like <q>, Moz doesn't support all the weird table-column align stuff...).
Eh? Nowhere in anything does it say script tags are only allowed in the <head>.
HTML comments shouldn't be there in any case, since both tags' content is supposed to be CDATA. A web browser could completely ignore everything between those <!-- --> markers and still be within spec - and for XHTML pages that's exactly what they do.
Anyone concerned about working around bugs in broken HTML parsers should learn to use external links instead of prolonging the lifespan of hacks and workarounds.
Firefox understands CSS links, I seem to remember the BBC site using it in their RSS feeds. Konqueror (and by extension Webkit) don't seem to do XML at all.
The problem with the HTML5 "spec" is that it is so much penis-programming: purposely breaking existing tools and workflows so that everyone will be forced to rewrite everything from scratch. The parsing model is so ad-hoc that it is sure to create another code-for-the-browser generation of web developers.
Demonstrate something that HTML 5 "purposely breaks". Or even better, provide any evidence you understand the fucking spec at all.
Using an outdated version of Btrfs with known performance issues, using different settings for ext3 and ext4. Those are the ones that stand out, but the people in their forums do a good job of ripping apart nearly every benchmark they do.
Yes, we all get it. Lots of Slashdotters don't block ads. We know. We've read it a million times on this site. Could you just shut the hell up so we (the "3 dozen" you refer to) can comment on the actual story? Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem, of course, is that the same guys doing the codewriting are the same guys doing the naming and marketing
This is why Ubuntu is so popular now - the same marketdroids making all those flashy "cool" names for Microsoft apps also have control over how the software is written.
You drill holes in the ground with your penis? ...don't answer that.
A year would be 1/4 of the distance between here and Alpha Centuri, no?
You can't make smaller, higher resolution screens for the desktop, because the average Windows user will start complaining that their screen space is being "stolen" or something equally idiotic. Similarly the laptop LCDs have to be tiny 160dpi postage stamps, because that's what they've been trained to think is correct.
I bought one of those TVs. They're 1680x1050 physically, everything else is scaled. Also the EDID is broken so you have to jump through hoops to get the native resolution.
That's because a large amount of commercial music these days is just covering someone else's work, or sampling it. They didn't actually make the good part themselves.
That's an interesting thing... the power supply has more potential to cause damage than anything else in the PC, but nobody ever thinks about protecting against its failure. Makes me wonder why we don't have surge protectors on the 5/12V rails as standard yet.
What's with the fucking retard doing all these "offtopic" moderations lately?
Wouldn't it make more sense to have an only-scan-on-write feature for executable files? No sense checking them when they're read if they get exec'ed 30 times a day and updated only once a month.
Also, there is no way they're going to stick with the name "Rage". I believe they learned once before that you need to use your engine as a marketing tool by tying it to your identity as a business and not calling it something obscure.
You mean by calling it something like... I dunno, "id Tech 5"?
That most web page authors are too incompetent to even follow XML's validity rules, let alone HTML's?
HTML 5 is based on the DOM. The HTML4-compatible syntax is defined from scratch, it isn't based on SGML because no web browser actually parses SGML correctly. Most of them don't do HTML4.01 fully for that matter (IE doesn't do simple things like <q>, Moz doesn't support all the weird table-column align stuff...).
Why do we need this again?
For all the badly written commercial software that's too slow to run on one machine yet too expensive to leave enough budget for a real cluster.
Eh? Nowhere in anything does it say script tags are only allowed in the <head>.
HTML comments shouldn't be there in any case, since both tags' content is supposed to be CDATA. A web browser could completely ignore everything between those <!-- --> markers and still be within spec - and for XHTML pages that's exactly what they do.
Anyone concerned about working around bugs in broken HTML parsers should learn to use external links instead of prolonging the lifespan of hacks and workarounds.
There should be an <?xml-stylesheet ?> in there after "CSS". /.'s shitty comment parser strikes again...
Firefox understands CSS links, I seem to remember the BBC site using it in their RSS feeds. Konqueror (and by extension Webkit) don't seem to do XML at all.
Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher?
No, and it doesn't need to, since vanilla GCC has had that optimisation for years.
subj.
The problem with the HTML5 "spec" is that it is so much penis-programming: purposely breaking existing tools and workflows so that everyone will be forced to rewrite everything from scratch. The parsing model is so ad-hoc that it is sure to create another code-for-the-browser generation of web developers.
Demonstrate something that HTML 5 "purposely breaks". Or even better, provide any evidence you understand the fucking spec at all.
IPv6 support in XP is incomplete and lacks a UI
It doesn't need a UI - XPSP2 will pick up addresses from radvd, no questions asked.
Why would you choose to switch to an insecure browser??
Using an outdated version of Btrfs with known performance issues, using different settings for ext3 and ext4. Those are the ones that stand out, but the people in their forums do a good job of ripping apart nearly every benchmark they do.
I had kdawson blocked for two months, then I came here and realised I was missing out on all the great kdawson-bashing.
Remap F1? Typing "esc-:h" out in full isn't going to hurt.
Yes, we all get it. Lots of Slashdotters don't block ads. We know. We've read it a million times on this site. Could you just shut the hell up so we (the "3 dozen" you refer to) can comment on the actual story? Thank you.