Find a way to make it work in all of them, and be standards-compliant. A webmaster who doesn't is incompetent, and needs to be replaced with someone who can get it done.
Obviously you've never actually created non-trivial web pages. Let me summarize what everyone else has said already: the standards are ambiguous (read the CSS specification and count the instances of "the exact behavior is up to the user agent") and no browser supports 100% of the standards.
Straczynski has already shown how to handle time travel correctly. What happened in the past did happen, and whatever you may do to try to change what happened, all you end up doing is ensuring that nothing changes. You can go back in time, but you can't change the past.
Jesus is not a prophet in Jewish theology. By the time Jesus was alive, Nevi'im (Book of Prophets) was pretty much finished. There's enough evidence that he existed for most Jews to accept that he was alive about 2000 years ago, but he holds no place in Jewish theology or tradition.
You're giving users far too much credit. When a user asks how they can set a variable on line 50 of a script and use the value of that variable on line 20 (no, not functions), and insists that it must be done that way, there's only so much a language can do to help that user. PHP has/had its fair share of problems, many of which have been fixed (register_globals and magic_quotes_gpc have been off by default for a long time, register_globals will be removed completely in PHP6), but a complete idiot will write terrible code in any language. Most languages are just too difficult for complete idiots to figure out.
Like all other programming languages, PHP is a tool (cue jokes). A person that knows how to use the tool well can do some very impressive work with it. A person that doesn't know how to use the tool will probably just break stuff.
If I remember correctly, domains are required (someone can fill in the exact RFC/standard that I can't remember offhand) to have certain email addresses go to an actual human that reads messages. I'm pretty sure abuse@example.com is one, and I think support@example.com is another.
There seems to be this common misconception that current scientific theory explains everything in the universe. If that were true, we might as well all just quit now. We clearly know more now about how the universe works than we did a hundred years ago. It seems to be a fairly reasonable assumption that we'll know more in a hundred years than we do now. The problem with creationism is that the basic premise is "we don't understand it, so it must have been done by a deity." That statement is not scientific at all, since there's no real way to prove or disprove it. Scientists (the intellectually honest ones, at least), on the other hand, will say that we don't know yet, but we'll keep trying to find an answer.
You also miss one major possibility. You say that the universe cannot be infinitely old. You're assuming, though, that infinitely old means linearly infinitely old. If you're standing somewhere and look straight ahead, the ground looks flat. Start walking forward and keep walking (and swimming), and the ground always looks more or less flat (ignoring mountains and such). Walk long enough and where do you end up? Right back where you started. 3000 years ago (give or take), humans discovered that the two-dimensional ground was curved in three dimensions. About 100 years ago, humans discovered that space is also curved. Perhaps someday we'll discover that time itself is curved, and there is no true beginning or end to the universe.
Go back 20 years, and I think that was just called something like "separation of interface and implementation", "separation of concerns", or "information hiding". I guess "Agile" is easier to type, but it doesn't strike me as substantially different. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Or they could enforce the part that requires a working version of what you're patenting. You wouldn't be able to just predict what someone else will do and file a patent for it, you'd actually have to do it yourself. Predicting what someone else will do and getting a patent on it so you can later sue them is generally called abusing the system. Predicting what someone else will do and doing it before them is generally called being a smart businessman.
Don't forget American revolutionaries hiding behind trees and picking off British soldiers in bright red uniforms. You'd think the US would remember stuff like this, but history doesn't seem to be our best subject these days.
There are plenty of regulations to ensure that the power plant is safe, but that's pretty much it. Most (if not all) nuclear reactors that are used for electricity for the general public are owned by normal power generation companies.
What I want to know is, why release these damn things in the busiest season? The only reason I come up with is everyone wants their little Johnny to have that PS3 xmas... people in this country lose their heads all in the name of the almighty money spending holiday called Christmas.
You aren't selling the software, you're selling the support (possibly as well as the box, discs, real-paper documentation, etc.). Nothing in the GPL prevents you from charging people for installing the software for them, maintaining the installation by making sure that security patches are applied regularly, or fixing the installation when some idiot breaks it. As far as I know, you can also accept payment for implementing a specific feature for a customer, you just have to release the code for that feature back into the public. This is the real benefit of open source software for businesses. Sure, most companies don't make money from it, but they sure save a lot of money by not having to write their own web servers (or buying something like IIS). And if a company needs a specific new feature, they pay a programmer or two to implement it and give it back to the community. The money paid to those couple programmers is still far less than what they would have paid for all of the software that they use.
In case anyone didn't know, this style was intentional. The series was meant to feel more like a play on a stage than a television show. Personally, I don't have all of these huge problems with the acting that other people seem to have. It wasn't perfect, but I think it fit the style of the series pretty well.
Slashdot Mirror
Straczynski has already shown how to handle time travel correctly. What happened in the past did happen, and whatever you may do to try to change what happened, all you end up doing is ensuring that nothing changes. You can go back in time, but you can't change the past.
Jesus is not a prophet in Jewish theology. By the time Jesus was alive, Nevi'im (Book of Prophets) was pretty much finished. There's enough evidence that he existed for most Jews to accept that he was alive about 2000 years ago, but he holds no place in Jewish theology or tradition.
http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.pdo.php is probably what you're looking for.
You're giving users far too much credit. When a user asks how they can set a variable on line 50 of a script and use the value of that variable on line 20 (no, not functions), and insists that it must be done that way, there's only so much a language can do to help that user. PHP has/had its fair share of problems, many of which have been fixed (register_globals and magic_quotes_gpc have been off by default for a long time, register_globals will be removed completely in PHP6), but a complete idiot will write terrible code in any language. Most languages are just too difficult for complete idiots to figure out.
Like all other programming languages, PHP is a tool (cue jokes). A person that knows how to use the tool well can do some very impressive work with it. A person that doesn't know how to use the tool will probably just break stuff.
Bingo!
The Mormons are the ones that are correct. Anybody who watches South Park knows that.
If I remember correctly, domains are required (someone can fill in the exact RFC/standard that I can't remember offhand) to have certain email addresses go to an actual human that reads messages. I'm pretty sure abuse@example.com is one, and I think support@example.com is another.
Isn't that what Scientology says?
There seems to be this common misconception that current scientific theory explains everything in the universe. If that were true, we might as well all just quit now. We clearly know more now about how the universe works than we did a hundred years ago. It seems to be a fairly reasonable assumption that we'll know more in a hundred years than we do now. The problem with creationism is that the basic premise is "we don't understand it, so it must have been done by a deity." That statement is not scientific at all, since there's no real way to prove or disprove it. Scientists (the intellectually honest ones, at least), on the other hand, will say that we don't know yet, but we'll keep trying to find an answer.
You also miss one major possibility. You say that the universe cannot be infinitely old. You're assuming, though, that infinitely old means linearly infinitely old. If you're standing somewhere and look straight ahead, the ground looks flat. Start walking forward and keep walking (and swimming), and the ground always looks more or less flat (ignoring mountains and such). Walk long enough and where do you end up? Right back where you started. 3000 years ago (give or take), humans discovered that the two-dimensional ground was curved in three dimensions. About 100 years ago, humans discovered that space is also curved. Perhaps someday we'll discover that time itself is curved, and there is no true beginning or end to the universe.
You read Slashdot. Of course you spend too much time alone.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Go back 20 years, and I think that was just called something like "separation of interface and implementation", "separation of concerns", or "information hiding". I guess "Agile" is easier to type, but it doesn't strike me as substantially different. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Old thermometers, maybe. Most (I would be surprised if not almost all) thermometers made now use alcohol instead of mercury.
Or they could enforce the part that requires a working version of what you're patenting. You wouldn't be able to just predict what someone else will do and file a patent for it, you'd actually have to do it yourself. Predicting what someone else will do and getting a patent on it so you can later sue them is generally called abusing the system. Predicting what someone else will do and doing it before them is generally called being a smart businessman.
Don't forget American revolutionaries hiding behind trees and picking off British soldiers in bright red uniforms. You'd think the US would remember stuff like this, but history doesn't seem to be our best subject these days.
PHP has had a good API that includes support for prepared statements for a while now.
http://www.php.net/pdo
That one is easy to explain. He rolled a 20.
Bingo!
There are plenty of regulations to ensure that the power plant is safe, but that's pretty much it. Most (if not all) nuclear reactors that are used for electricity for the general public are owned by normal power generation companies.
I thought the only way to be sure was to nuke it from orbit?
You aren't selling the software, you're selling the support (possibly as well as the box, discs, real-paper documentation, etc.). Nothing in the GPL prevents you from charging people for installing the software for them, maintaining the installation by making sure that security patches are applied regularly, or fixing the installation when some idiot breaks it. As far as I know, you can also accept payment for implementing a specific feature for a customer, you just have to release the code for that feature back into the public. This is the real benefit of open source software for businesses. Sure, most companies don't make money from it, but they sure save a lot of money by not having to write their own web servers (or buying something like IIS). And if a company needs a specific new feature, they pay a programmer or two to implement it and give it back to the community. The money paid to those couple programmers is still far less than what they would have paid for all of the software that they use.
There's a joke nearby... I can smell it...
In case anyone didn't know, this style was intentional. The series was meant to feel more like a play on a stage than a television show. Personally, I don't have all of these huge problems with the acting that other people seem to have. It wasn't perfect, but I think it fit the style of the series pretty well.