Sayonara

It's amazing that ranked as news-worthy even on Computer World's radar. What are they thinking? (By the way, the June-July spike is usually attributed to "Well you passed all your exams, so here's the compyudah I promised you")

Alternatively, consider that a human whose immune system does not attack beneficial microbes, or does not waste resources attacking non-harmful microbes, is likely to be more efficient than one who does. So he would be selectively advantaged to a small degree.

Yup. A couple of warnings though: - Ubuntu writes the Grub bootloader to your master boot sector by default, so you can't "uninstall" ubuntu by just deleting its partitions. - To change the boot order of different operating systems you need to edit /etc/grub.conf by hand, as root. Ubuntu is a lovely distro but I have heard that it is the most resource-hungry implementation of GNOME.

Ubuntu tends to turn off all packages and modules by default, which can be annoying if you want a quick setup with a decent "normal" footprint.

Wow! IE lost nearly 20% then managed to claw back more than half a percent, which was almost certainly definitely absolutely not due to a minor summer spike in OEM distributions! Like... WOW! I know, I know - that was really sarcastic. Bite me.

This whole "inverse standards" argument is retarded anyway: Internet Explorer is closed source, and an industry can't arrange itself around standards that nobody can see.

No, they shouldn't. Web sites should be designed to meet the standards. That's why we have them. IE is one commercial product of many and there is no reason to arbitrarily remould the world around it. They. Cannot. Be. Trusted. Webserver retrieval stats are notoriously unreliable. THIS IS A FACT that is known by ALL SERIOUS WEBMASTERS. They did not "ignore" the standards. They took a look at how everyone else was implementing them, and implemented them in a different way that very cleverly changed the whole box model of CSS design. They also dropped out 24-alpha png support, and SVG, purely because they were new standards that the rest of the industry was excited about. I disagree. Again, a poor comment that stems from your inability to grasp that the internet is not the web. No. What does that have to do with anything? Most web users don't even know what HTML is. I don't know a thing about standards in the medical world, for example, but next time I'm in hospital I'm damned well going to expect the equipment and/or drugs my visit involves to have been developed according to all the applicable standards. Deviating from standards for your own gain is always a bad thing for the end user. So non-IE users are doing something other than "using software"? Something that makes them deserve to be "inconvenienced"? What is wrong with IE7 meeting standards, exactly? It will cost IE users nothing, and according to your own arguments they will see no difference. The first and most impacting consequence will be that web sites are designed more easily and in less time, with much better features. What kind of a "web professional" opposes that? One that's broken inside, I'll warrant. You most certainly have "found" them, but don't necessarily know it. What you personally do or do not see is not really important to the discussion. I suggest you expand your knowledge of that topic. Let me make this enduringly clear to you, one final time: "The internet" has **** all to do with web standards. You clearly have never researched the origins of the web or its development process. To say that TBL and the World Wide Web Consortium "don't understand" the internet or the web is so patently wrong it's just hilarious. What is wrong with you? None of that means anything. TBL and the working groups (which, by the way, are made up of vendors such as Microsoft, Sun, Netscape etc, as well as designers, technology leaders etc) continue to develop the philosophy and language of the web. This is a work in progess and TBL has not been festering in a retirement home with his fingers in his ears letting changes to his own creation pass him by. To suggest that you are more up-to-speed on the state of the web than the W3C is mind-boggling, considering you don't even think standards "matter". Who do you think the W3C is, exactly? As far as the web is concerned, they truly represent the phrase "by the people, for the people". Ebay may use an ActiveX applet somewhere, but it obviously can't be that important. I use every major browser on the market and ActiveX is turned off in all of them. I have 21 auctions running right now, and six bids placed, and guess what - I have never been prompted to allow ActiveX. Also guess what - ActiveX is a proprietary language, like VBScript, and there's no reason it should be supported by any browser. Any designer who is worth a crap will provide an alternative for content or functionality that is delivered through non-standard means. Yeah, everyone's a professional web designer. It's difficult to be amazed by that page because the code is tag soup. There's obviously a lot of inline styling and obsolete attributes in use though. I'm guessing you are forcing styles at the inline level because IE doesn't behave as expected with higher level CSS control. We've all been there - eventually you'll get tired of the "per tag" bollocks and actually learn the IE CSS2 quirks. It's inevitable so you might as well accept it. When I get home I can try that site in different browsers if you like. What you need to remember is that we aren't saying "you can't write pages that Internet Explorer will display properly". What we are saying is "Internet Explorer doesn't display standard, interoperable pages in the same way as all of the other browsers, and tiresome workarounds are needed." This is a problem because it means conscientious designers have to either accomodate two different ways of doing things (and the fixes that go in are invariably for IE's problems, not everyone else), or ignore a whole bunch of their client's customers. Only the Chief Idiot in the Village of the Idiots goes with the second option. The validator does not check if your boxes "work correctly". It checks if you are using valid entities of the language, with correct syntax and structure. You should be coding to XHTML 1.0 Transitional at the very least, with XHTML Strict being the preferred type. It does not say that because they are missing, it says that because they are deprecated attributes. They do not exist in HTML 4.01 Transitional. If (and only if) the dimensions need to be specified, this should be done via the stylesheet. Can we stop accusing herme3 of lying about the ActiveX on eBay? It's perfectly conceivable that they do have an applet somewhere. If they do use ActiveX objects, they obviously aren't business critical, so we can still win the point without getting nasty. I think you mean "If ActiveX is required for important web sites, then that is a major shortcoming on the designer's part." Exactly why people with brains in their heads, like me, turn it off. Advertisers do not and should not dictate host policy. Use a proper ad content provider, such as cj.com. No, it's bad for the web site owners who are too stupid or lazy to avoid the devil's own banners. Natural selection at work. By allowing a third party the ability to run ActiveX objects from your pages, you are giving them the opportunity and mechanism to run arbitrary and potentially damaging instructions on your visitors' machines, possibly without their permission or even knowledge. That is user hostile. ActiveX is simply not required and definitely not appropriate for adverts, or any other frivolous content. So that it can silently download beacons or malware. Yes, an advert that uses ActiveX would be an obvious and significant threat. Herme3, I asked you to think carefully before replying. You clearly did not bother, and also did not address the vast majority of my points. I am guessing you did not bother to follow the links I provided either, or research any of the topics I brought up. You are arguing in this thread in exactly the same way you argue about things like ghosts. He was turning the tables on herme3, hence the big cheesy grin. No, that's a red herring. The argument is not that standards should never be changed by anyone, but that we all move forward together. Rogue elements that are out for their own financial gain are ruining it for everyone. This is quantifiable. Standards such as the box model are crucial to the design of all pages. Hence the major problem with Microsoft not following the standard. The fact that some evangelists don't actually uderstand the arguments does not mean the arguments don't exist, or can be ignored. IE has a raft of problems, most of which are a direct result of Microsoft trying to muscle out all competition. Now, there's nothing wrong with that in business terms, but in an environment like the web where interoperability is key, they are just ****ing everyone else over. It really is that simple. The worst part is that they really don't need to. Why would you NOT want your browser to support alpha transparency? Why would you NOT want to support native SVG? Why would you NOT want to allow an open library of plugins? (Actually, that one is obvious).

This topic needs a standard DTC response formulating.

You don't seem to be "talking" about anything at all. Give this thread a visible point.

Presumably you don't know what a honeypot is then. Purpose of the thread: "a Hall of Shame for all of the infamously memorable people on SFN" Caveat: "No name-calling, flaming, or whatever." And we do. Not really an issue thus far, is it?

For god's sake, how can people not know a honeypot thread when they see one? Stop complaining about the moral fortitude of the thread and start bitching about rubbish users.

I don't think it's real. I think it's a pre-existing condition called "telling people why they are wrong disorder", and message boards are just a more convenient medium for it.

Sorry if it sounded a bit terse. Threads like these put me in murderer mode Who cares if the client is ignorant? They're probably going to pay you for support, and it gives you the opportunity to tutor them in the ways of righteousness before someone like herme3 gets to them. DW is one of the best WYSIWYG editors going (or at least, the Studio 2004 MX version is). The problem with its standards support etc is that MM basically threw everything they could think of at this version and you need to do some tweaking to get it working properly, which isn't very user friendly seeing as most users don't even know that they can change the program. It's really really hard to figure out just why FF is so much more appealing than Moz.

Exactly, and so far everyone's just been talking about it.

I don't think there's enough name-calling in this thread.

The Oedipus Complex only describes one very specific instance of "the state of mind in which minors seek out similar relationships with adults", and it doesn't do it terribly well.

No thanks herme3. Not more of the same foolishness.

On the other hand, the vast majority of the inner surface is going to be unpopulated, so it can probably stand to take a good few hits, just like Earth does.

This topic has been done over and over on this site.

Is anyone having problems logging in to DTC? If so, let me know here.

Hope you don't mind being burned at the stake by the village elders.

He's bored and it's fun?

If you are going to respond to the replies that you asked for using selective vision, then you may well find soon that you can only post in selected forums. Play nice, IOW.

No it isn't Sayonara3

It has to be said, the source for gettysburg.homestead.com is not as terrible as I had feared. Most of the garbage is inserted by Homestead. Some thoughts though: - Remove all deprecated tags such as <font />, - Ensure WAI accessibility checkpoints are met, - Pull your inline styles out and take the time to create a stylesheet that does the same job. That will save you time and filesize in the long run, - Stop using bloated colour codes, - Use Dublin Core metadata, - Reconsider using an image with no "alt" attribute as your only <noscript /> content.