calbiterol

I'm currently harvesting a large amount of capacitors off of an old vcr. I don't know exactly what I'll use them for, but I will need to know how to charge them. So, long story short, what is needed for a capacitor charging circuit?

Has anyone else started neophyte? I can't get past the first level - well, I think I know a way, but I'd rather not invade the system...

Hmmm... I don't know what's causing this error for you. I have Firefox and my.msn.com is my homepage, but I have never once had a problem with it displaying (unless msn's server was down.) As far as the rest of your post, I completely agree with Sayo. On a side note, why all the <tag />? I feel rather out of the loop - is the slash in "/>" now standard coding? If it is, I feel sorely outdated.

Well, Wikipedia isn't always right. In my scanning of the article, I didn't see your quote; where is it? Also, the word "uses" is not the same as "requires." As I said before, there could be multiple versions of the ebay site. Yourdad, that doesn't necessarily mean that Firefox supports ActiveX.

First, it seems like everyone is being much more civil now, and I'm in a much better mood so I won't flame up again. Both of these are good things. Now, on to business. I am not in any way arguing that IE has (a tad bit less than) 80% of the marketshare. I am saying that over 80 million people is not a few. Yes, but you don't have a large enough statistics base. You need more subjects. Plus, the chart you posted had a lot of different results, with a high degree of difference between them. For example, one showed Firefox (which I recently learned is actually supposed to be capitalized like that, and abbreviated Fx, but that's a totally different discussion, and very nitpicky) at nearly 30% of total visitors, and another didn't have it at all. Errrm... Kindof. Not written for, but they accomodate for IE issues. But I do agree with you that the end user should not be inconvenienced because of m$'s mistakes. Hopefully IE7 will be better, but I somehow doubt it will. I did, however, see that it is supposed to have alpha-channel transparency and full .png support. That in itself makes me happier. In my use of IE, I agree - EXCEPT when I design a page strictly to standards, checking it in Firefox, and then re-check it in IE. When something inevitably brakes, I'm forced to accomodate - but before that, it worked fine. Except in IE. Anyways... A lot of times, this is the way it works. I don't know if it's really a good or a bad thing. As has been previously stated, Ebay works completely with Firefox. Perhaps the IE version of Ebay (if there are different sites for different browsers) does, or perhaps it uses ASP on the IE version (easily confused with ActiveX - ASP, if you didn't know, stands for active server pages, IIRC, but you might already know that). But I can tell you that it is not a requirement to have activex in the sense that we have been talking about it. Cheers.

You have to register to get it to appear. Wait 'till you get to neophyte. Then it becomes a real challenge.

How incredibly appropriate.

Undersea volcanic vents might supply a pseudo-fire concept.

More than 80 million people is just a few? Of all of the current browser versions, very few do not comply with the w3c standards. In reality, more like 80% or 90% of the browsers work with the standards. There is no other way around. Standards do not work with browsers. Browsers either abide by the standards or they don't. Either there is order or there isn't. Yes, they are being smart, but coming from a web designer's point of view, I use php to write a separate, downgraded (read: looks a lot worse) version of all of my sites for IE, specifically because it does not support standards and functionality that almost all other browsers do. This is what I mean by being nice - they make the sites equal. I, on the other hand, side with the w3c, and don't make it equal for browsers whose makers are self-riteous enough to ignore standards. STANDARDS DO NOT ACCOMODATE FOR BROWSERS! BROWSERS ACCOMODATE FOR STANDARDS! ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO DO SO! How many times must we repeat this for you to accumulate understanding through your pachydermic skull? I would be willing to put money on my VERY firm belief that the one and only reason this is the case is because IE ships with windows. If IE did not ship with windows (and was not an integral part), then the numbers would be reversed. And as for the "few people" that think standards are important... I am afraid that you are gravely mistaken. Any and every web designer out there who has any sense of self-preservation and any idea what they are doing knows the importance of standards. I have already told you to get your facts straight. These are made-up and/or faulty statistics. I believe you mean if all of the browsers do things one way, and IE does them another, then the web designer gets very pissed at IE because more people are using IE than the other browsers. This, by the way, is NOT any kind of indicator over which browser is better. First, it was an agreement, not a promise. There is a large difference. And for the last time, not only did m$ agree that IE would be written around the standards (as it should be), but standards are not written to browsers. Browsers are written to standards. Everyone elected Microsoft as the King of the Internet, and possibly the entire computer industry. Everyone made their votes when they bought Windows. OI! This is horse sh!t. First, you are bringing in the OS argument, and thereby becoming a complete hypocrite. Second, OS's do NOT do the job of browsers, and OS's do NOT need to comply to w3c standards. Browsers do. There is a HUGE difference. And plenty of people do not buy windows, they buy computers which have been preloaded with windows, because they cannot buy good pc's without windows loaded unless they are buying a mac. And those statistics do not represent the entirety of the web.

Wrong. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with IE users! This has to do with BROWSERS. Forgive me if I sound mad. I'm really tired right now, and I do not feel the need to hide my anger at your ignorance. Yeah yeah yeah go whine about it. IE is ONE browser. There are many, many browsers in existance. IE is the one browser on the left. ALL of the others, except the older versions, are the ones on the right side of the road. And, as for the the majority of internet users using the IE browser, "The truth is not always the same as the majority decision." -Pope Jean Paul This is total bull. The standards are not enforced as well as they should be because web designers, on the whole, are not jerks. If they weren't so nice, almost all of the websites out there would conform to the standards, and they wouldn't be viewable in IE. Everything else, however, would display them perfectly. And so, people would stop using IE, and that would force m$ to shape up, at least with IE. They were. And all of the web designers. And everyone with any kind of interface with the 'net at all. Not "were supposed to," but were. And they did, for those who comply to the standards. Yes, the very same standards that m$ AGREED TO ABIDE BY, which they now COMPLETELY IGNORE. Might have means nothing; this is speculation. Come back when you have your facts straight. Then we can talk business. Oh, and this is archaic. We aren't talking about 5 years ago. We are talking about today, here and now. The W3C standards are dynamic. They get updated frequently to accomodate issues, unlike m$ products. You know, if you had a nuclear weapon in your posession, I might be more inclined to listen to you. I can declare myself the riteous emporer of Earth if I so desire, and demand that the "standards," otherwise known as order and law, be changed. Is this a very likely thing to occur? NO. Neither are the w3c standards being changed because ONE browser does not comply after EXPLICITLY, UNCONDITIONALLY agreeing to abide by them. What you are saying is like the b@stards here in America who think that, because we are the "chosen nation," we can nuke the entire middle east, as well as anyone that doesn't agree with us, and that's okay, because hey, we're the almighty U.S. of A. That's bull. So is what you're saying should be done. Like I said, sorry for the snappyness, but it needed to be said by someone.

You get the idea. It was a metaphor. A comparison. A good one, too.

In defense of "us primitive males," Now, aside from the comments about stereotypical males... There you have it.

First, http://www.firefox.com has official information on the coming of FireFox 2. Now, onto my reason for posting: Here, I have to put down my resignations and throw in a few words. Note that this is IE for MAC, which is vastly different from IE for windows. VASTLY different. If you follow your own links/research through, you will find this article, which is the w3.org's data source, which states: Whether or not you read through the entire article, you have to remember a few things. First, be consistent. Firefox isn't even on this list. That's because it wasn't around then. IE, on the other hand, had been around for quite some time. AFAIK, FireFox 1.0 supported CSS1 just as well, if not better than, any of the browsers on the chart. That is a huge time difference. CSS1 standards were around for a chunk of time before IE supported them, FireFox supported CSS1 and parts of CSS2 from the beginning. And again, being consistent, you must be consistent with the OS you are referring to. IE on Mac is arguably better security-wise just because it's on a Mac, but that is bringing in the OS argument, which I refuse to do. On the subject of CSS1 support, look at the chart. For windows, Opera v4 and v5 and Navigator 6 all have more support than IE5.5 for windows. And the difference in support between IE5(mac) and it's closest contender, Opera 5, is only one half of one percent. In my opinion, that is too close to base an entire argument upon. Sorry about the length.

Lucid, I was referring to dolphins as well, with the exception of agreeing with yourdad. Again, I will say, their flippers are useful for swimming, not using our tools. Just because they develop on the same planet, does not mean that their tools have to be similar. Alternatively, couldn't they manipulate things with their mouth? I've seen plenty of dogs get along fine without any real digits, just using their mouths and legs in general.

Not necessarily. How much difficulty might we have manipulating a two-ton sledgehammer with no handle? Quite a lot. And yet, concievably, some organism out there in this wide universe could use something like this as a tool, and have absolutely no problem manipulating it. The whole point that I'm trying to make is that their tools would not necessarily have to be anything like our tools. Yes, they would have problems manipulating simple hand tools, such as the ones from our past, but if they developed their own, things could be quite different. Plus what yourdad said.

That's all nitpicking, though. That wasn't the point. And that makes it scientifically proven that we're better! Excuse me while I retrieve my chainsaw and hockey mask...

Yep. I agree. On the other hand, how many times has m$ said they'd do something and then completely ignored their word? Case in point: w3c standards. There's gotta be an extension for FF that gives you skinning features.

Hermit Kermit. Seriously though, I agree with you 110%, it's really, really annoying that every little thing is "scientifically proven."

Trees actually "explode" when it gets cold enough. Google it. Perhaps explode isn't the correct term, though. Explosively shatter? It's not a true explosion. Looking at the original question from an engineering standpoint, it'd really be rather easy. Have a very thin layer of highly insulating plastic holding a lot of liquid nitrogen, and then have a two-liter-bottle-esque-container (again, a very good insulator) in the middle filled with liquid helium and with a bit of water. Cap that. When the solid plastic container in the middle (with the liquid helium and the water) is filled with enough gaseous helium, it'll burst, breaking the surrounding sac of liquid nitrogen, and spraying the area with extremely coldness. Problem is, a lot of the liquid nitrogen would boil away long before hitting anything, and would therefore cause almost no damage. Just a thought.

What? I'm sorry, did you say something?

It will be interesting to see what happens when volumetric displays get into mainstream usage - and they will - because IMHO, the first browser/OS to accomodate for cheap, accessible 3d displays will have a HUGE headstart on all the others. That's quite off topic, though. Personally, I'd used IE all my life, and then, as soon as I started using FF, I loved it - and now I despise IE for it's lack of support for the standards. One plus of FF not being owned by a multibillion (multitrillion? how big exactly is m$ these days?) corporation: bug fixes, etc are generally put out a heck of a lot faster.

What I was getting at was that I probably either misheard him or misinterpreted what he said. He could have just said that more transitions than 1-2, 2-3, 4-3, etc are possible. To be honest, it was so long ago that I can't remember exactly what was said. Can you explain more in depth the rules with 2 photons, and the situatations under which these are valid? And what's the weak nuclear interatction mixing the 2s and 2p states? I know what 2s and 2p are, just what's the weak nuclear interaction? Is it just the weak force (like the strong force, but the weak force; not just a weak force... You get the idea)?

Albertlee: You have to register as a user to get the submit proof dialogue.

And no, I got really frustrated with that level, I must have gone through around five (!!!) lists before finally finding one that had the architecture on there. I couldn't find any other way.

Finally beat novice! When I got past the level I was stuck on, I felt like banging my head against a table. *DUH!*