Tables, divs, whatever, but please at least do this when you use tables:

<table class="bare-layout-table"><tr>
<td class="sidebar"><% sidebar %></td>
<td class="content"><% content %></td>
</tr></table>

Do not clutter up your page with useless, meaningless extra divs.

Speed of light: 3 x 10^8 m/s
Reasonable chip size: 1cm
Ask uncle Google about "(300 000 000 (m / s)) / (1 cm)"

Response: 30 gigahertz

We will never see another 10x speed up on the basis of clockrate. Forget the heat thing (although that's also a killer), clockrate is dead, dead, dead.

Gee, thanks for assuming that I'm incompetent. No, I use an actual text editor (which even shows you the different between spaces and tabs and everything), not Notepad. Step one was the hardest because I assumed that I needed to replace the tabs with 4 spaces, like God intended, but when I ran it, I saw that it didn't work, and quickly realized that it was meant to be replaced with 8 spaces. All of the other steps worked the first time, which made step one the hardest relatively speaking, but none of the steps (including one) was especially hard. Maybe if I used a crappy text editor that doesn't distinguish tabs and spaces number one would have been actually hard, but if you program in Python without being aware of the difference between tabs and spaces the fault is your own.

You misspelled puts? ;-D

Here's code you can put in your Python 2.x code today to future proof it against the change to xrange:

try:
      range = xrange
except NameError:
      pass

After that, just write range in your code and it will automatically use the equivalent of Python 2's xrange. If you're running Python 2.6, you can use a print function (instead of a print keyword) by adding from __future__ import print_function to your header as well, and you're good to go for a large number of Python 3 switching problems.

I got it to run in Python 3, and here are the changes I need to make:

1) The file was screwed up and used a tab instead of 8 spaces (a problem unrelated to Python 3).
2) I had to change all the print statements into print functions by wrapping the argument in parentheses.
3) I had to change xrange to range.
4) I had to add from functools import reduce to the top of the file.

Done. 4 changes made in 5 minutes, the hardest of which (#1) would have screwed up Python 2.x as well.

You're joking about McCain's age, but the fact is he was born August 29, 1936 in Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Panama Canal Zone, Panama, AKA not in the US of A.

Racist Obama haters are too busy checking the font on his birth certificate to own up to this fact.

That's just another example of the problem, really. Articles have to battle vandalism so much of the time that self-appointed editors just revert first and ask questions later, with the unfortunate consequence of ensuring that the article will never be better than mediocre.

Well, you clearly didn't look at what I added, because the bit on Bulgakov was cited. The other bits were janitorial.

Give me one reason why this was reverted and you'll be giving me one more reason than the reverter did.

I've noticed that too. Here's the thing, there are three kinds of articles in Wikipedia today: stubs, mediocre articles, and decent articles. No one is watching the stubs, so you can add stuff to those, though there is a serious problem getting past the deletionists to make a stub in the first place. Mediocre articles on the other hand had some good information in the past, but now paragraph three cuts off halfway through and the references section is screwed up. When you look at the history of the page, you see that basically the only changes made to it in the last year were vandalism and reverts, but the reverts weren't done properly and information was lost. Finally, the decent articles are decent because there are specific people who patrol the page to keep out vandalism. The trouble is, they're assholes and they also keep out new information and revert any improvements to the page. Good luck pointing out that the sections of the page need to be reorganized: you'll just be reverted away.

Devil's advocate: If other people can't understand your error messages, doesn't that make them... bad error messages?

Remember: "Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute"

OTOH, if you do a good job of commenting on your easter egg in the source, whoever comes along after you should still be able to understand what's going on, and you get to amuse yourself with jokes. Win-win?

Not noticed in non-North American nation (Score:5, Insightful)

Incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Thanksgiving_Day.

(Yes, it's unrelated to Pilgrims or whatever, but it's in November and has "thanksgiving" in its name.)

More importantly, who the hell says "soccer pitch"? Americans say "soccer field." Brits say "football pitch." No one says "soccer pitch."

Sounds like the writer was a Brit who tried to put it in Americanese but failed.