Sayonara

No, never. What socket is it? I'm upgrading my Palomino 2000+ (which I found out last week has been underclocked for a year ) to an AMD64 3500+ today. I can't wait.

I know atinymonkey, MrL, and a couple of others.

What browser? IE5.5 has dreadful problems with VB forums.

Because the servers can be anywhere on the planet, but the FBI can't.

Anyway, who cares? Clearly a case of "Inconsistent With Our Purpose".

I really don't see why they should be (other than, of course, the fact that evolution is as real as gravity, and what you're actually arguing about is just one proposed mega-mechanism).

What Pangloss said. Sometimes profit-on-first-use is not the only way to exploit customers. Because it is a commercial product, and the notion of incorporating that into WWW standards cannot be reconciled with the fundamental principles of the web. You could always abandon it. It's the z-indices causing the problem. They're not needed anyway; might as well remove them.

Replies moved to the version of this thread in the news forum.

Since he doesn't know who edited the clip, just that it has been edited [in some fashion], it's fairly obvious that when he says "you edited the clip" he means "you or your source".

You could define a CSS class for a <dl /> that (a) makes it appear as a box with "normal" HTML content, but also (b) makes it invisible. Then use some javascript to reveal it on mouseover. That's how these things are normally done. You get a customisable pop-over effect that is easily updated, and your code remains beautifully clean.

Inaccessible, yes. It's in the "removed threads" forum, which is where offensive posts or spam threads go. Moderators should not be leaving a trail behind when they move threads there. I'll remind them. Thanks for pointing that out.

Which seems to be repetition of what I was replying to. I asked you if you agree or disagree. Given your last post, responding with "probably" was blatant mine-laying. I'm not asking you to change your opinions; I'm asking you to only respond to me with pertinent points. I know this topic is one of your favourite bug-bears, but I'd rather not have you treating me as a sounding board just because I'm involved in a vaguely related discussion with somebody else. Like I said above, fair enough. I don't see any part of my post which could possibly be interpreted as "your view is wrong". My questions and pauses all relate to your posts' relevance to mine. I understand you feel your opinion will help. I understand that you have your own views on Demosthenes' position. What I am asking you to do is show me why I should consider the two things to be linked. It's a simple request, and if you don't like the way it is being presented I'm perfectly open to polite comments to that effect. It seems to me that you have seen an exchange that bears some resemblance to one of your favourite argument topics (please don't insult my intelligence by denying that it is, because you have bitched about it to me at length in the recent past), injected your opinion into the discussion, and are baulking now that difficult questions have been asked. I really don't see what that has to do with the price of fish. Demosthenes' ability to answer questions does not change depending on what forum he posts in. I really don't think that I am being "offensive, arrogant [or] rude", actually. I have not said anything offensive or rude, and I am hardly likely to be arrogant while entrenched in enquiry mode. You know full well you are bringing in your own issues from RL, and I dare say probably attributing motives to my posts that come from your head, rather than the content I wrote. You also know damned well that emotive content should never be inferred from plain text. If you think I am being defensive, it might have something to do with your tendency to lambast me with irrelevant lines of enquiry when I express a disagreeable opinion on a topic you have an interest in (and not just me, you do it to everyone). Example: the skiing conversation the other night. I don't take offence Phil, because I understand where this is all coming from. Yes, it's true - I am the source of all your problems. And personal accountability is as mythical as the ignore button. Stop being a child. You're almost thirty. If you really intend to leave just over this (which is bollocks anyway, given your long-lived contempt for half the members, and the way we do things here), then I'm sorry you can't see past your own pride. Apologies for the off-topic ranting, everyone.

Then you have lost me, because you seem to be relying on a definition that is not provided there. (sorry for the late reply.)

Not necessarily. If you built a modular superstructure with a slot-in system in mind, you could prevent obsolescence and allow easy upgrades with the latest word in drive technology.

The link to a moved thread does still take you to the thread.

As Aeternus explained, they did it so that they could lever developers away from interoperable standards, and lock them in to Microsoft's proprietary product. Which, I should point out, will leave the web in one right ****ing mess should the IE product line ever end, which is something few people ever seem to consider. Which still doesn't mean that anything to do with "the internet" determines WWW best practice. If there is nothing wrong with that, then why not agree with the standards issues and advocate a positive rebuild in IE7? IE advocates have nothing to lose, whereas the rest of the web does. Which is fine. What isn't fine is using the same arguments to defend IE, or to dismiss non-IE browsers. Meaningless. Until you see the entire industry only signing on to web standards and protocols that did not come from the W3C, they're effectively in charge. You grossly underestimate their role. Bear in mind that the main body of the W3C is made up of the smartest bods in the most important web technology lead organisations. That's an idiotic thing to say because (a) it's not even approaching qualifiable, and (b) as I have said so many times, the structure and processes of the web are independent of "the internet", even if you tack on the word "modern" (as if to imply there have been major architecture changes recently that the W3C and people in this thread haven't heard about yet ). I rather think that they do. In fact, their own online standards school makes a pretty huge deal about it. On EVERY PAGE. I'm not sure what you could mean by that, seeing as it's all mediated by VBScript, which is a proprietary language yet still conspicuously publically available. Your take on the issue is short-sighted and selfish. The web was designed to be interoperable. It still works that way. It always will. If Microsoft want their own subnet that only uses their code, eventually divergence is the only way this can end. They will not win. Believe me, Microsoft may well want to push the de facto standard for web content but they sure as hell don't want to take over the W3C's role. If, as a "web designer", you do not see the need for interoperability, then you are failing your clients, their customers, and yourself. Every element that is specced out in the standards for HTML and XHTML is supported by all standards-compliant browsers. That's why it's called a standard - it tells you how the language works. There are slight differences in the way they are implemented, but this is to be expected and is all within scope. SGML entities that are not in the spec are not HTML. They are either deprecated, or made up by specific vendors, and should only be used very carefully by people who know all the implications. No you aren't. The best possible service would be writing a site that uses standards-compliant code, is fully accessible, and supports all clients (i.e. not just browsers) including IE5-6. Which, as I have already told you, is quicker and easier than just writing for IE (not to mention more rewarding). No shit. That's never been in dispute. Relevant to what points? If there are any differences it's likely to be box margins (due to IE having a different box model to everyone else on the planet), or the javascripts (because, guess what, Microsoft's implementation of Javascript differs from everyone else's - and there's no excusing that one). Those are not examples of opinions you were supporting though, are they? Those are examples of facts you reported that ultimately had no bearing on the discussion, or were misrepresenting the situation.

Errr... no. It's true that TOS didn't age very well, but it's also true that even at the time it was really bad television, despite being enjoyable. I personally thought the TOS actors were all a lot better on the big screen. I found the first 4 seasons to be trite, preachy, and to be honest quite crude, from a political and/or moral standpoint. I cite "the planet of the savage black people with tribal customs and dress, who like to fight to the death due to their lack of moral fibre and misguided honorifics" seen in Code of Honour as evidence. It wasn't until the last three seasons that they started really crafting the stories properly. Agree up until the point where they started copying Babylon 5, and the Dominion War kicked off big-style. What? I've seen every episode of Voyager and I credit myself with enough powers of observation to say that I think I'd have noticed such agendas being pushed. Voyager did nothing that grossly exceeded the original principles of universal equality that Roddenberry wanted in his series, and I don't recall any stories about gay characters (unless you count temporary body-swapping, in which case DS9's examples are far more conspicuous thanks to the Trill.) I disagree. Voyager had some unique moments. Few and far between, but they were there. The worst thing about it was that the filler episodes were always so lacklustre they could actually get painfully boring. The good thing about Voyager is that the rewrites of old episodes were done carefully, unlike Enterprise where only the character names changed. Don't ever watch it. Seriously. It was a lot of fun though, if you like cool battles. JMS was not stingy with the eye candy. Like most American sci fi, it got better once it had survived the "first three season gauntlet" and the studio had the confidence to put more money in. Seasons 7-9 are rather spiffy. Firefly was actually quite novel. Atlantis is an opportunity to showcase stories that weren't workable in the SG1 universe. Farscape was pure escapism, and the viewer knew that anything could happen.

I ask you if you disagree with my previously stated position, and you respond "probably" (which I take to mean "yes", seeing as the reply goes on), despite the fact that you yourself stated that the conventional practice is to refer to evidence. You then proceed to talk about seeing the diametric opposite of source reconciliation as being more important. Stop being inconsistent. (...And that's not unique to historians.) Not really sure how it's relevant to the case in hand, given the circumstances that led to this discussion. The idea that historians 'might use rubbish references' is not a reason to expect no supporting evidence for any given claim, no matter how you dress up the argument. Which, one might reasonably expect, might lead to situations where - while discussing historical events - the provider of a claim is asked for reliable evidence. I rather thought I was.

No?

The irony value is too good to ignore. We get money for sending the incredulous their way.

I say chaps, here is some whizzer fun. Look at this image in any non-IE-engine browser. Then look at it in IE (save outstanding work first): http://sylvana.net/test/AP4.jpg I'd like to believe that was an engine flaw in IE, but I can think of at least one way it might be faked. Opinions? [edit] Turns out this is flawed corrupt image handling, and was fixed by one of the (four) IE patches released on 9th August.

I tried that and got the notorious weird security error. According to the uFAQ: Hurrahs. How easy is that.

I want proper root dammit. I'm sure there's a "Shell as root" option in the actions menu but iirc it demands the root password.

The oddest thing about Ubuntu (Hoary 5.04) is that it doesn't make you create a root password on install. What's that all about?