Oh, also the title of the top story on the main page doesn't display.

Actually, I've been browsing on my iPhone (3gs, much to Steve's chagrin, I'm sure), and the new design is horrible.

• Tapping on a story (e.g. to zoom in so the text is readable), or expanding a folded comment will scroll me back up to the top of the page. Big PITA, since mobile devices don't have scroll bars.
• The text is way too small to read without eyestrain, even when zoomed so that my screen fits the width of a comment box.
• To load more comments, have to scroll all the way to the bottom and back. Again, killer because there's no scrollbars on a mobile device.
• There's no way to change my threshold on an iPhone, because clicking and dragging is the slider at the top is inherently impossible.

If my three man design/development team released something this poorly thought out and untested... I don't even know what'd happen.

Indeed. They both stem from the Greek "pathos", which means, roughly, emotional suffering in response to something.

So... I guess I don't see your point.

But we have a problem when the stability of the entire economic system relies on the stability of the debt/equity/commodities 'markets'.

We have a problem because the behaviour of the market is really the behaviour of millions of people around the world speculating on the future value of things (some better informed, others less so, none with a clear picture of the whole).

Them's as play the market for profit are gambling, and that's well accepted. But in this system, even those that choose not to gamble can be adversely affected by market fluctuations. eg1: When the market crashes, opportunities to do real work diminish, because everyone's afraid to spend. eg2: Without making interest, somehow the money you save for retirement will be worth almost nothing by the time you need it. eg3: The price of steel/oil/corn/housing/something-you-make-or-use fluctuates. All based on someone else's speculation.

You surely do succeed and fail by your own choices in the capitalist system, but so do you succeed and fail by your own choices in a game like poker. A good player will probably come out ahead. Probably.

You don't say...

:)

And that, friends, is precisely what the GP was talking about when he said:

With a distributed system, you can still use multiple commits, so that your revision history is readable, and so that you have the advantage of version control when making your changes (ie, rolling back changes, tracking features in small bunches, etc).

Then you push all at once to the server, and all the other developers/users can see the individual commits, and make sense of them.

With properly designed CSS and Javascript, you can always have a fallback that basically equates to "how you would've done it in HTML 4", that'll work just fine in IE.

In my new sites, IE users get a functional app, but not a pretty, or even necessarily ajaxy one.

It's extra work, but you end up supporting all sorts of crippled browsers, from lynx, to cell phones, to IE.

+1 Touche

But by working that way, the computer encourages people to create unreadable messes, that other developers can't easily understand.

Simpler parsing rules are more a boon for the people than for the computers. Think about it.

To all of my sibling posters: I do believe you've just been trolled.

It's no so much that they say you can't use your widget, but that you have to allow your retailers to replace your widget with a better one, if they choose to.

I see no problem there.

Do you have links to support:

• Windows was not on the approved OS list
• Bribes were paid
• MS Took a destroyer out of commission

Not that I'd be too surprised, but I'd be interested to have more information.

You make good points. Just wanted to clarify about "good will". It's not just some arbitrary number based on how much you think people like you.

It's actually based on how much you've paid for companies that you've acquired. If you pay more to buy a company than the (on paper) net worth of that company, you call that amount "good will".

Essentially, "good will" is what you think the intangible value of that company you're acquiring is worth. The fact that it goes on your books is just an artifact of accounting, to make the accounts all balance.

Haha that was my first thought when I read the mod on GP's comment. But then, I thought, perhaps they did.... If I had points, I don't know if I'd have given funny or insightful.