No way NeXT had a pathetic 320x240 4000 color display. NeXT started with a 1120x832 grayscale display. The 4000-color display was an Amiga-thing.

If not a botnet, maybe he's running Google. :-)

No, the unit "m", which stands for "meter", cannot be omitted - it's central to the measurement. While the copula "per" could be omitted. Even "mph" has the unit "m", where it stands for "miles". Otherwise you americans would write "ph" ("per hour"), which means nothing.

I thought the same. The unit is "km" per hour (therefore "kmh"), while "k" alone only means a thousand of those units. So "kph" means "a thousand of nothing per hour". :-)

I still use Homesite too. :-)
You should look mirabyte Web Architect, if you're in search of a more recent tool.

I still use Homesite too - I'm used to it.
If you're in search of something more recent, try mirabyte Web Architect.

Think a moment before posting:
1994 HTML1
1999 HTML2
2004 HTML3
2009 HTML4
2014 HTML5
2019 HTML6 ...

q.e.d. :-)

A new standard every 5 years for example. Since HTML is around since 1994, HTML5 would be out in 2014. Developers can easily adapt, and wouldn't have to support other version than the current one and its predecessor... 5 years is also enough time to reach a "stable" and mature standard.

The whole world should slow down. Stick with a stable standard for a while. And relax.

In fact, there's alot more in those notes than only characters.

It would be helpful if we get another note of readable text (maybe a booklet from school) - so we compare those characters to other characters he wrote.

194 WLD's NCBE SE- this must be solvable! :-)

We absolutely don't need nuclear power. Nuclear plants account only for a small percentage of all energy produced and consumed world-wide.

In Germany, where 17 plants are in operation, 7 were switched off last week, and the other 10 could also be switched off any time without shortcomings in energy-supply. Germany is producing more energy than it needs.

With a bit more sparing and sensible energy-consumption we could save more energy than all those nuclear plants produce.

Burning oil, gas or coal produces carbon dioxide, yes. But those are not the only alternatives. Don't forget hydropower, wind and sun! My region (South Tyrol in Northern Italy) for example is producing twice the amount of energy with hydropower plants, than we need - we are exporting 50% of this "green" energy.

The only reason to sustain nuclear power is its low cost: greedy people earn a lot of money with it - at our risk and the risk of future generations. I wouldn't care, if my electricity bill would rise a 20% - others shouldn't too, so shut off those nuclear time-bombs ASAP!

You ask how many have died? We don't know it right now, as the radiation will decay slowly, so the death-toll and (what's worse) the people dying of cancer and leukemia will rise for many generations. In Cernobyl babies are still born crippled - after 25 years of the disaster!!!

Any other incident lasts only a few minutes: earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding, dam-breach, mine-breakins, ... The victims are countable and the rebuilding may start the day after the incident.

Wile with a nuclear incident, the surrounding area (and we talk about areas the size of an entire state!) becomes uninhabitable for thousands of years! :-(

Any nuclear risk, as small it might be, is too much risk. There exists only one single nuclear plant world-wide, which is 100% secure: it's in Austria - it was never turned on. :-)

They may be dependent from each other (it seems obvious), but... the possibility the next earthquake happens this year, the next year or in 10 years is exactly the same, as long as we cannot calculate or measure that persumed "dependency".