Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Yes, I was, and I respectfully disagree. Browsers today do a lot more, but frequently the support for newer features is so specific to each browser and in some cases so unstable that it is completely useless for real world projects
Correct. That's why you don't use newer features until they're absorbed by the standard.
But the point is that these non-standard-compliant implementation techniques don't break anything in practice, because every browser is tolerant of them and will always remain so because far too much would break otherwise.
What I meant was: if they don't validate. I didn't mean "break" in the sense that they don't work.
You may not care for the practice, but nothing leaves my hands into production until it validates, except when the stakeholder insists on using something that won't.
It is all in the TFA, folks, please read it from time to time.
I did read TFA, thanks very much. I was asking WHY her claims were rejected. We already knew THAT they were rejected.
Your comment adds nothing to the "why?"
I take it you don't use a charcoal barbecue
I'm not sure how you do it where you're from, but up here in the North we generally don't barbecue from 30 feet away.
Is anything legal in California these days?
Medical marijuana, gay marriage, conceal/carry.
Say you're not really pissed that fucking flamethrowers aren't legal there, are you? I don't know if you've gotten a look at your fellow man in the United States lately, but are these really people you want to be able to have flamethrowers? Geez, louise, there can't be more than maybe 1 in 100 that I think should be allowed to drive a car. Maybe 1 in 10 should be allowed to have shoelaces for chrissake.
Although I'm sure we can find someone reading this that believes "More flamethrowers = Less crime".
As a result, the bureaucrats and regulators were not respected by the industry they were regulating, and were widely (and appropriately) vilified for interfering in efforts to just get the job done properly.
I don't know if SpaceX is leapfrogging ULA. The Alliance (why does that just sound wrong?) is responsible for a number of different booster programs spread out over time and territory.
Yeah, and was so "successful" at it that when there were problems getting Russian engines, they were temporarily grounded.
That said, some pressure on the behemoths to tighten up their act might be helpful - but remember although the ULA is presumably private, it is very much beholden to the Military Industrial Complex which means it is very much beholden to the Congress which means different booster programs spread out over time and territory as much time and territory as is possible.
Then where are they?
Granted, they are starting to produce some decent stuff again, but only really started doing so when SpaceX and a couple of other upstarts threatened their warm fuzzy government cocoon.
NASA has become too big and bureaucratic to get much done in any kind of hurry. Yes, that is partly, or perhaps even mostly, Congress' fault with its budget shenanigans. But it has gotten so bad that when the Space Shuttle was grounded, they didn't even have a replacement. Shoddy, short-term thinking. It's not possible to run a decent manned space program that way.
NASA was ordered by the President to clean up its crony-bureaucratic act after the Challenger disaster, clear back in '86. It never did. It was ordered to do so again after the Columbia disaster. It still hasn't.
If it finds itself unable to do so, inevitably it will be replaced.
Unfortunately, most of the major browsers today do not do this at all consistently. Even some of the people writing the standards have basically given up.
Were you doing websites 10 or 15 years ago? I was. Browser compatibility today is phenomenal in comparison. No, it's not perfect, or even wonderful... except when you compare to then.
HTML5 "living standard"? Seriously? If it changes arbitrarily then it's not a standard.
I agree. Please remind Congress about this in re: the U.S. Constitution.
Another common case is trendy MVC frameworks like Angular, which often use non-standard attributes on HTML elements for their own purposes. They could use standard "data-*" attributes, but once you've got a few of those sitting on many elements in your mark-up, it's just noise and excess weight, so they use their own prefix for namespacing instead. And yet, I don't see anyone claiming that either Google's search engine or Angular as a JS framework have failed as a result of these heinous crimes...
If it breaks my JS or CSS, I won't use it unless the stakeholder absolutely insists. And then I'll try to talk them out of it.
Having fun isn't necessarily stupid. Having fun with flamboyantly dangerous things isn't necessarily stupid. It's endangering unwilling bystanders that's stupid.
Some people like to build and shoot powerful crossbows, or even replicas of medieval siege weapons. These are extremely dangerous and useless things. The dangerous power of a trebuchet to throw an upright piano 150 yards is part of the charm.
But a trebuchet is something that takes certain amount of thought and sacrifice to obtain and use. This flamethrower thing is more like a powerful handgun. There's been a recent fad for ridiculously overpowered handguns, which pack superfluously fatal power into a convenient, affordable form factor. The recent brouhaha over "armor piercing" ammunition was a side effect of a manufacturer selling a cut-down semi-automatic carbine as a "handgun", even though if you look at videos of people using them they're obviously terrible as handguns. This raised the question of whether 5.56 NATO ammunition should be regulated as "handgun ammunition", and in the end I think the decision not to was reasonablee. These aren't cop-killing or military handguns. They're extremely dangerous toys designed to get your rocks off.
There are some who'd say that because these guns are dangerous and impractical they should be banned. But I don't agree. "Impractical" isn't the same as "useless" because getting your rocks off is a legitimate use for a thing. I think people should be able to enjoy their ridiculous firearms as long as they do it at some kind of appropriate range. I also think there's a real danger though from stupid people who will go plinking in the woods with the things like they were BB guns.
That's really the only problem I have with this flamethrower, whether it's gold, chrome, or gunmetal gray. Any idiot can buy one, but it'd take someone reasonably intelligent and determined to find a place where it can be used safely. I'm not against people buying them, but I am for coming down hard on people who use them where they're a danger or public nuisance.
yeah, i despise the plutocracy, the abuse of our political system by corporations, how wall street and bankers are allowed to get away with terrible crimes, etc.
but a bank is a fucking completely normal institution we all need. it just needs to be heavily regulated to function fairly
to call all banks evil and and all bankers evil just makes you out to be a complete moron
good luck with not getting robbed once people find out you stuff your money in your mattress
yes, i am familiar with this faulty line of reasoning
the simple response to your logical fallacy is: because grey areas exist doesn't mean black and white don't exist
it might not be possible to draw a hard line on behavior. but there is behavior which is clearly not in a grey area and clearly calls for a judgment against you
this pilot had clear signs of being untrustworthy to fly commercially. it's not fuzzy and unsure
if you don't believe me, wait until a few years when the first verdicts come down in this case. a judge/ jury will decide on his employer/ the govt fucking up. the facts as they appear now show a clear problem that should have precluded him from piloting any plane with people on board
First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.
- Mahatma Gandhi
i will not laugh at you, mr. scary insect politician man
NK puts its citizens in *concentration camps* for crimes, some petty, some political
*three generations* of prisoners
your granddad looked the wrong way at the wrong way
therefore, you are born in and suffer as a malnourished slave
this isn't a *political disagreement* i have, moron, this is me making an observation of extremely gross human rights abuses, that no other country in today's world approaches, save perhaps in the areas controlled by ISIS and Boko Haram. NK goes far, far beyond any cruelty in the USA and Saudi Arabia, or any other real country
the simple fact is you have no fucking clue what you are talking about
and, again, you lack a sense of proportionality and degree
your knowledge on this topic is deficient
and your judgment is wrong in such a way that tends to suggest a general deficiency, off on more than just geopolitics
you should stop talking about this topic unless you like being laughed at by anyone serious and intelligent
Well, in the end you have to ask "did he get away with it?". Or, given that he turned himself in later, "did he have some purpose in escaping that he fulfilled?"
Intelligence is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. It includes things like thinking through unintended consequences before acting that quite clever people are sometimes bad at.
But most of that is on the cloud anyway.
And how, exactly, do you think that data in the cloud is stored?