I think you are confusing plagiarism with copyright.

Actually it was 5 children.

Ok, I'll bite ... ignorant

cavreader? Lundse seems to have ably answered your last post.

Thanks causality (777677), what you said rings so true in so many areas.

If a cell tower tells the phone its location doesn't it make sense to save that so the same question doesn't get asked over and over again?

Tracking the locations of cell towers != tracking a user

rsync

Your point is correct, but your test was flawed.

Gothcha, makes perfect sense now. I was amused as I read it initially. I understand what you were saying now. Thats the problem with written communication sometimes we misread what others are saying.

Actually the ordering you promulgate indicates a bias. Chrome and Safari should be in close proximity to each other as they are both based on the same underlying technology. I love them both.

smelch said:

smelch follows up:

No additional comment is necessary

Actually, you are wrong and misdirecting your attack. If a browser vendor wants to boast HTML5 compliance then it is completely fair to ask about compliance with previous iterations of the HTML standard.

And yes you can have w3c compliant html that fails miserably in IE. Competent web developers can/will, and do cajole their code to work correctly in IE. That doesn't mean as you state, that the code in its original incarnation was wrong or the developer was incompetent. It simply means he had to tweak his/her code to comply with a non-compliant web browser. And many including myself do that begrudginly because so many people use an depend on said non-compliant browser.

Your post made me sad. Not for me, I have six children, but sad for you.

btw. I like your sig.

And is good for me also. Files are so much better than physical media. IMHO.