Okay, tell me where the document is that defines and explains how IE renders things. What is that? It doesn't exist?!
You're coding on borrowed time. It's far easier to tweak a standards compliant site that will reliably work in non-IE browsers to work in IE than fumble around with code, hoping that it will display in IE and other web browsers.
Developing to standards ensures that your website will look how you want it to in browsers to come. Browsers you can't test. You have far less chance of this being the case if your code doesn't conform to a well-defined standard.
For the record, I actually practice what I preach, and it works well!
XHTML was a good idea, poorly executed. HTML is the way forward. Current web browsers are tag soup parsers with an XML parser tacked on. XML's draconian error handling has no place on the web.
XHTML isn't necessarily easier to parse than (valid) HTML.
You can innovate messily without creating a web page that doesn't even follow the basic HTML4 standard. I also find that you put too much faith into the people at large. Most of the people don't know what they're doing, and they're certainly not innovating.
What the hell are you whining about? There are only two standards for mark-up: HTML and XHTML. The DOCTYPEs are clear on which you should use for what. The best option is Strict.
Semantics aren't crap. They're meaningful and powerful. They make styling and maintenance much easier, and describes your document to a machine better than a dozen font tags ever could.
You talk as if all web browsers break the standard, while there's only one that does which gives web developers over the world grief. And we all know which one that is.
The HTML and CSS standards haven't changed in about decade, and the next versions only add to the standard instead of changing it.
While I agree that a low barrier to entry is a good thing, low standards compliance is not. You're advocating chaos. Web standards ensure that everyone works together and that your content renders how you wanted it.
It's not like the web standards are hard to learn. Text? Use the p element. Image? Use the img element. Navigation? Use a list. There, most people are satisfied with their web page by now. Only need to use some CSS to give it some style, which is one of the simplest languages to learn.
By the way, your p element example was a bad one, as you don't need to close it at all.
Actually, professionals develop their website according to standards first, then do what is necessary to make it render properly in all other web browsers. Usually this is only needed for IE, for which you can use its conditional comments to serve it a specific stylesheet that fixes the problems.
Or you could just not install the Flash plug-in. What, no YouTube? Just download the.flv files and play them in your video player. It's a much better use of resources.
That's assuming that people can directly control such data. Your web browser sends its user agent string and referrer in the HTTP header by default. Then there's the extra information that sites can get with JavaScript.
I got more information as an addendum to my previous comment.
Nintendo never said that the Wii couldn't play DVDs. They said they couldn't let it because of licensing issues. However, they promised that you would be able to enable it if you bought the right with Wii points. They just never followed up on that.
As for Gunpei Yokoi, he did contribute to the development of the Game Boy Advance.
The source you linked got its info from unofficial sources. The part you quoted talks about the GPU, not the CPU. Clock speed isn't everything either.
The Wii's CPU is left-over junk from the same line of CPUs born from the multi-core research conducted by IBM, funded by Apple and Sony, which the Xenon and Cell were also born from. It was customised to be compatible with the GameCube's Gekko.
The CPU chipset was vastly enhanced, and the motherboard is completely different.
I know Nintendo's documentation says that. It doesn't mean more than the fact that the CPU is not dual-core, and the overall architecture didn't change much, and thus doesn't need a new development approach than the previous generation.
I think it all depends on how important all this social stuff is to you. I'm someone who's home most of the time when I'm not at school. I'm not interested in parties. Friends haven't had much of a problem with me not having a mobile phone while they did.
So do Sony and Microsoft. Have you already forgotten all the firmware upgrades on Sony's PSP intended to block homebrew?
They can do with their consoles what they like. It's not like piracy is a good thing for their business, and it's expected they will do what they can to stop it.
Exhibit B: Nintendo always says things are "impossible" so they can earn more money. Take, for example, the DVD incident.
I'll give you that. Business as always.
Exhibit C: Their business practices are kinda mean. I mean just look at what they did with Gunpei Yokoi! Not only was it their fault the Virtual Boy was a failure but they didn't even give him a second chance.
Now you're just whining. The Virtual Boy in itself was a mess, and if Nintendo chose to not give him a second chance, that's their right, and it's not really mean, especially considering how big a fiasco it was.
Would you give a man a second chance when he's responsible for a failure like this? Business-wise, it doesn't make sense.
I'm glad I'm getting a PS3 soon, sony's the only company doing things right this generation.
They're just not popular enough anymore to afford to be the dicks they were previously. If their PS3 ever takes off, you'll see how their habits come right back.
I was more focused on debunking the claim that it was architecturally based on Xenon or the Cell; the Wii's processor is, in fact, basically an overclocked die-shrink of the GameCube's.
This is not a black&white issue. The Wii's processor does come from the multi-core CPU IBM project, funded by Apple and Sony, where the Xenon and Cell CPUs came from (I did not say it was based on those two CPUs!). It was then customised to be compatible with the Gecko CPU that the GameCube came from, which is why it can run GameCube games and seems like nothing more than an overclocked Gecko at first glance.
First, Wikipedia knows barely anything about the Wii's CPU. Second, you can't just compare the clock rate and say one is better than the other. There are many more factors at play, like cache, supported instructions, general architecture, etc.
If I were to follow your reasoning then AMD's CPUs always sucked badly compared to their contempary Intel CPUs.
Internet services are a quite different beast than a real bank. If the bank doesn't give you back your money, you can sue them and prove that you deposited money. Where's proof that you uploaded a picture of your dog to the picture hosting service?
am I the only person that understands we are held to some amount of responsibility in using the web?!
In the context of the entire Internet-using population, one of the few. Seriously, most don't realise that what they put on the Internet can be seen by everyone else.
I thought e-mail clients these days have a search feature themselves that you can use to find what you seek. No need to back everything up all the time.
The console is as powerful as the original Xbox and on a par with the Nintendo Wii.
On a par with the Nintendo Wii? Yeah, right. The Wii is at least twice as powerful as the original XBox. It also has a specialised CPU that came from the same project that gave birth to XBox 360's CPU and the PS3's Cell CPU.
People seriously underestimate the Wii because it's not HD and the large slew of shovelware.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, tell me where the document is that defines and explains how IE renders things. What is that? It doesn't exist?!
You're coding on borrowed time. It's far easier to tweak a standards compliant site that will reliably work in non-IE browsers to work in IE than fumble around with code, hoping that it will display in IE and other web browsers.
Developing to standards ensures that your website will look how you want it to in browsers to come. Browsers you can't test. You have far less chance of this being the case if your code doesn't conform to a well-defined standard.
For the record, I actually practice what I preach, and it works well!
XHTML was a good idea, poorly executed. HTML is the way forward. Current web browsers are tag soup parsers with an XML parser tacked on. XML's draconian error handling has no place on the web.
XHTML isn't necessarily easier to parse than (valid) HTML.
You can innovate messily without creating a web page that doesn't even follow the basic HTML4 standard. I also find that you put too much faith into the people at large. Most of the people don't know what they're doing, and they're certainly not innovating.
What the hell are you whining about? There are only two standards for mark-up: HTML and XHTML. The DOCTYPEs are clear on which you should use for what. The best option is Strict.
Semantics aren't crap. They're meaningful and powerful. They make styling and maintenance much easier, and describes your document to a machine better than a dozen font tags ever could.
You talk as if all web browsers break the standard, while there's only one that does which gives web developers over the world grief. And we all know which one that is.
The HTML and CSS standards haven't changed in about decade, and the next versions only add to the standard instead of changing it.
While I agree that a low barrier to entry is a good thing, low standards compliance is not. You're advocating chaos. Web standards ensure that everyone works together and that your content renders how you wanted it.
It's not like the web standards are hard to learn. Text? Use the p element. Image? Use the img element. Navigation? Use a list. There, most people are satisfied with their web page by now. Only need to use some CSS to give it some style, which is one of the simplest languages to learn.
By the way, your p element example was a bad one, as you don't need to close it at all.
Actually, professionals develop their website according to standards first, then do what is necessary to make it render properly in all other web browsers. Usually this is only needed for IE, for which you can use its conditional comments to serve it a specific stylesheet that fixes the problems.
Or you could just not install the Flash plug-in. What, no YouTube? Just download the .flv files and play them in your video player. It's a much better use of resources.
That's assuming that people can directly control such data. Your web browser sends its user agent string and referrer in the HTTP header by default. Then there's the extra information that sites can get with JavaScript.
I got more information as an addendum to my previous comment.
Nintendo never said that the Wii couldn't play DVDs. They said they couldn't let it because of licensing issues. However, they promised that you would be able to enable it if you bought the right with Wii points. They just never followed up on that.
As for Gunpei Yokoi, he did contribute to the development of the Game Boy Advance.
Read my other comment. Different CPU, just compatible. Better graphics chipset. Totally different motherboard.
The source you linked got its info from unofficial sources. The part you quoted talks about the GPU, not the CPU. Clock speed isn't everything either.
The Wii's CPU is left-over junk from the same line of CPUs born from the multi-core research conducted by IBM, funded by Apple and Sony, which the Xenon and Cell were also born from. It was customised to be compatible with the GameCube's Gekko.
The CPU chipset was vastly enhanced, and the motherboard is completely different.
I know Nintendo's documentation says that. It doesn't mean more than the fact that the CPU is not dual-core, and the overall architecture didn't change much, and thus doesn't need a new development approach than the previous generation.
I think it all depends on how important all this social stuff is to you. I'm someone who's home most of the time when I'm not at school. I'm not interested in parties. Friends haven't had much of a problem with me not having a mobile phone while they did.
So yeah, I'm still going strong.
The Genesis/Mega Drive had region locking after 1992. The Sega Saturn did as well.
So do Sony and Microsoft. Have you already forgotten all the firmware upgrades on Sony's PSP intended to block homebrew?
They can do with their consoles what they like. It's not like piracy is a good thing for their business, and it's expected they will do what they can to stop it.
I'll give you that. Business as always.
Now you're just whining. The Virtual Boy in itself was a mess, and if Nintendo chose to not give him a second chance, that's their right, and it's not really mean, especially considering how big a fiasco it was.
Would you give a man a second chance when he's responsible for a failure like this? Business-wise, it doesn't make sense.
They're just not popular enough anymore to afford to be the dicks they were previously. If their PS3 ever takes off, you'll see how their habits come right back.
The Wii is not an overclocked GameCube. Stop kidding yourself. It's just compatible with the architecture of the GameCube.
GNU/Linux won't obsolete your hardware. Apple will. So the incentive would be to save money.
I was thinking the same thing. But then I realised that one way to defeat CAPTCHAs is to hire a lot of people in India and China to solve them.
I'm glad that everyone has to vote in Belgium by law. Now if only the politicians would cooperate...
This is not a black&white issue. The Wii's processor does come from the multi-core CPU IBM project, funded by Apple and Sony, where the Xenon and Cell CPUs came from (I did not say it was based on those two CPUs!). It was then customised to be compatible with the Gecko CPU that the GameCube came from, which is why it can run GameCube games and seems like nothing more than an overclocked Gecko at first glance.
First, Wikipedia knows barely anything about the Wii's CPU. Second, you can't just compare the clock rate and say one is better than the other. There are many more factors at play, like cache, supported instructions, general architecture, etc.
If I were to follow your reasoning then AMD's CPUs always sucked badly compared to their contempary Intel CPUs.
Internet services are a quite different beast than a real bank. If the bank doesn't give you back your money, you can sue them and prove that you deposited money. Where's proof that you uploaded a picture of your dog to the picture hosting service?
In the context of the entire Internet-using population, one of the few. Seriously, most don't realise that what they put on the Internet can be seen by everyone else.
I thought e-mail clients these days have a search feature themselves that you can use to find what you seek. No need to back everything up all the time.
On a par with the Nintendo Wii? Yeah, right. The Wii is at least twice as powerful as the original XBox. It also has a specialised CPU that came from the same project that gave birth to XBox 360's CPU and the PS3's Cell CPU.
People seriously underestimate the Wii because it's not HD and the large slew of shovelware.
Thief! That's MY address!