re and they were right
really, does Firefox run on iphones then?
304 publicly visible posts • joined 27 Jun 2007
I really respect them for all the good they are trying to do with their foundation. To me, this is much more worthy than whether they like macs or not. Cue a load of comments like 'they are only giving away money they stole from their evil monopoly'
I want a win 7 phone from orange which I believe they are carrying. How do I find one on their website? Open orange and get some news page, browse to phones and brings up a blackberry. Search by HTC and it brings up the android desire. (got an android phone at the moment, don't like it)
OK, so, click on coming soon phones and it tries to sell me a cheap alcatel. Then I see an advert at the top of the screen for win 7 but its for the mozart. So now I have to find out what the difference between an mozart and the other ones I believe it will be carrying (of which I can find no details)
When the iphone came out there was a massive picture of 1 iphone on the homepage of the website and it said 'click here to register' - so so so much easier
I think these articles are great. Just to echo the previous points though, surely the contingency plan should have kicked in after you'd been up for, say, 24 hours straight?
My backround is not in this area at all, so forgive what also might be a stupid question, and apologies if you've already covered this; but why all this bother in the first place? Is it to get a better ROI, or because of end of support periods or for better functionality.
Anyway, as I said, I really like the tone and coverage of these posts; thank you very much.
Having lived on a council estate in inner city manchester for 10 years I can tell you that yes, yes there is a difference. One are a group of drug dealing, murdering, alcholic, braying, anti social, anti education, nilhistinc bunch of theievy pikey scum, the other are a bunch of helpful, curteous and caring people. Alright, there is a gripe here with the police, but to dismiss all policemen as criminals is almost as morinic as my heroin dealing next door neighbour. Almost.
I sincerely hope you come to realise the idiocy of your statement in your own time, without having it focibly altered by circumstance.
Fantastic, fantastic first novel, (and a great film though absolutely RIDDLED with errors ) since then though it's been a steady decline though. Sounds like he's on the up if he's coming out with barmy rubbish like that. There's nothing like reading a po faced novel where "Genius computer hackers" double for Deus Ex Machina.
I didn't really say that. Although I do believe a free press with a wide range of political ideals is imperative, and I bet this is a pretty widely held belief.
I suppose you could argue it had a duty to thus support all newspapers to the same extent that it has supported the murdoch rags.
Great move by the tories they can claim to be saving costs and at the same time driving a nail through the heart of the guardian's ad budget, so it will only be the independent and mirror against them versus the sun, the mail, the express, the times, the telegraph and daily star. How soon before the guardian goes online only and apes the time's charging model
I've worked in the private sector 5 years and the public ten. While there are well paid managers in the public sector now, in terms of pay for normal people, work volume, stress, uncertainty over employment, spending restrictions and so on, the public sector is worse. The idea that we all just sit around quaffing freebies from the state is lamentably wrong.
Yes, lets just get rid of all the quangos, and let parents run and regulate their own schools and advise on educational policies, IT and let their employers determine their own equality and health and safety legislation. Lets let drug companies regulate their own drugs and advise on developmental aid.
People think that quango == waste with no real knowledge of what they do. It's capita, network rail and mckinsley we'd be better off being shot of.
How many websites are they like that any more? I can't remember the last time I've seen one. Sure, this was an annoyance, not a problem, an annoyance 7 years or so ago but should I ever happen on one again I think I'd be tempted to take a look at it, for old times sake.
Also, people commentating here that websites are fast enough are probably members of the digital rich with fast internet connections and modern computers. You should consider your blessings rather than say speed improvements are not required.
what's the point of this? Surely for most people it is too poor a spec for a first machine, too expensive for a second / third? I thought these things were defined by price? Id either want to pay up to 200 and not be that bothered about performance cos, hey, it's cheap. When you start going up to 500, I'd have thought most people would rather just pay an extra couple of hundred and get something decent.
Obviously I am wrong here otherwise they wouldn't be selling them but it amazes me. Maybe they're all bought by large businesses which are more relaxed about cost.
So someone posted something negative as a comment on a blog. Fine. What happened next. Did the Uni / blog editor post the details of the poster, or was he asked to do so and complied?
TBH both of these seem a bit twatish things to do as far as I can see, but the first in particular looks particularly malicious.
"If you're writing a browser, validate its performance against standard HTML. If it doesn't render standard HTML, fix it. If it doesn't render non-standard HTML, who gives a damn?"
Users, for one. If you built a browser and it only parsed valid html, can you tell me what you would do when people said that by using it they couldn't see anything that used youtube's <embed src code? to think of one example.
Would you just tell them airily that they should only view pages that validate properly?
Good luck with that then
"If you're writing a browser, validate its performance against standard HTML. If it doesn't render standard HTML, fix it. If it doesn't render non-standard HTML, who gives a damn?"
Users, for one. If you built a browser and it only parsed valid html, can you tell me what you would do when people said that by using it they couldn't see anything that used youtube's <embed src code? to think of one example.
Would you just tell them airily that they should only view pages that validate properly?
Good luck with that then
I thought this was going to be a Reg reconstruction. :-(
BTW someone should tell Cern (home of the web ad-fucking nausea) that their webpages are busted
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Flhc-commissioning.web.cern.ch%2Flhc-commissioning%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.654
"Now they need a super computer and a billion lines of code to do what a couple of thousand valves could do in 1958!"
Yeah, how about saving my powerpoint as a movie, or creating a mailshot in word, or a billion applications in excel. Kilburn et al had great fun crowded around atlas 2 watching youtube clips, didn't they?
Can we not move on from the facts that:
a) Microsoft Office does a lot of things well
and
b) it does not require a 50 year regression in information technology to solve the things which it cannot do.
How long till some old fart replies and says powerpoints a load of new fangled nonsense as well.
The 'Just build a database people' on here are the type of people who, when asked for directions would retort in a nasally voice 'well I wouldn't start from here' and then go home and tell their wife what a wit they are while she thinks of her fitness instructor.
""the Devs in the department work with the philosophy that "I just worked several hundred hours designing, coding and testing this application, why the hell should I just give it away?""
Sigh."
I'm really not trying to bait anyone, but what is wrong with wanting to make money out of your work?