Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Does anybody know why google.com isnt well-formed?

Reply
Thread Tools

Does anybody know why google.com isnt well-formed?

 
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
On 28 Aug 2010, Helpful person <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Aug 26, 4:18*pm, muelli75 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Checkouthttp://www.google.comand display the source-code.
>>
>> Im missing the </body> and </html>.
>>
>> Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML?
>>
>> Martin

>
> I've been reading this thread with some amusement at the depth of
> outrage from a few people. It seems to me that the purpose of a
> standard is to allow programmers to write code that will display
> correctly in all browsers (assuming the browsers are compliant). It
> should not (and does not) put restrictions on the manner in which
> code is written.
>
> I have no doubt that the programmers at Google know exactly what they
> are doing and have excellent reasons for their code. (Some have been
> pointed out.) Unless you are concerned with maintaining the site
> it's non of your business. Let's just congratulate Google on their
> depth of knowledge of browser implementation and the tools they most
> certainly use to create efficient code.
>
> www.richardfisher


You forgot to say they were perfect, Kingfish...

Tell me about all of Microsoft's good reasons for doing what they do.

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article<(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Ed Mullen<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> by definition, a "business" exists to
> >> make a profit

> >
> > Businesses can exist for all sorts of purposes, and one would not
> > cease existing (like the Wizard of Oz when water drenched her) if
> > the owner was happy that it ran breaking even or at a small loss

>
> Nonsense. Charitable organizations abound. They are designed to break
> even, by law. A business, to survive and prosper, must make money.
> Cite contrary examples.
>


Nonsense eh? What has "must make money" got to do with "make a
profit for the owner"? Please explain, mention the customary need
for you to get a stiff drink.

> > so that her staff were kept in employment. Indeed an owner might
> > run the business deliberately at no profit, the better it does,
> > the higher the wages paid to staff.
> >

>
> Might. Might. Maybe. Maybe.
>
> Cite real examples.


Why? If I showed you businesses that were kept going (at least
for a while) at no profit and even a small loss for the sake of
the staff, what would you say? That they were not businesses by
definition? They were suddenly charities? There are legal
entities in Australia that are businesses, there is no
requirement for them to run at a profit. It is not definitional.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Helpful person
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
On Aug 29, 8:11*am, Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2010, Helpful person <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 26, 4:18*pm, muelli75 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> Hi!

>
> >> Checkouthttp://www.google.comanddisplay the source-code.

>
> >> Im missing the </body> and </html>.

>
> >> Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML?

>
> >> Martin

>
> > I've been reading this thread with some amusement at the depth of
> > outrage from a few people. *It seems to me that the purpose of a
> > standard is to allow programmers to write code that will display
> > correctly in all browsers (assuming the browsers are compliant). *It
> > should not (and does not) put restrictions on the manner in which
> > code is written.

>
> > I have no doubt that the programmers at Google know exactly what they
> > are doing and have excellent reasons for their code. *(Some have been
> > pointed out.) *Unless you are concerned with maintaining the site
> > it's non of your business. *Let's just congratulate Google on their
> > depth of knowledge of browser implementation and the tools they most
> > certainly use to create efficient code.

>
> >www.richardfisher

>
> You forgot to say they were perfect, Kingfish...
>
> Tell me about all of Microsoft's good reasons for doing what they do.
>

Why?
> --
> Neredbojias
>
> http://www.neredbojias.org/http://www.neredbojias.net/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Examples?


If I showed you businesses that were kept going (at least
for a while) at no profit and even a small loss for the sake of
the staff, would you say that they were not businesses by
definition? They were suddenly charities? There are legal
entities in Australia that are businesses, there is no
requirement for them to run at a profit. It is not definitional.

You forget to mention what "must make money" has to do with "make
a profit for the owner"?

What a way to spend a few minutes on a Sunday! <g>

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon Levi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Not quite sure what you intend with that. A business's raison d'etre is
>to make money for it's owners, whether it's a publicly-held or
>privately-held entity. I mean, by definition, a "business" exists to
>make a profit. Yes, surely, a company can do other things as well but
>its primary reason for existence is to sell goods or services at profit
>and provide a profitable return to its investors.


This is a popular view but recent experience indicates the primary
reason is to provide large salaries and bonuses for directors and
senior executives. Profit for shareholders is of secondary concern.

<http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/autos.ceo.jets/> provides a
classic illustration of my point.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Adrienne Boswell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)>
writing in news:(E-Mail Removed):

>> Why? If I showed you businesses that were kept going (at least
>> for a while) at no profit and even a small loss for the sake of
>> the staff, what would you say? That they were not businesses by
>> definition? They were suddenly charities? There are legal
>> entities in Australia that are businesses, there is no
>> requirement for them to run at a profit. It is not definitional.
>>

>
> Examples?
>
>


Back in the 80's, I worked for a small discount stock broker. Because of
some regulartory issues, business went down quite a bit, and there was
talk about closing down.

However, the owner, David Paul Kane really cared about the staff. He
came to each of us and gave us a choice, we could have our salaries
significantly cut, or we could be laid off to collect unemployment, or
find another job. He assured us that times would get better again, and
that when they did, he would bring salaries back or hire you back, which
ever you decided to do.

I decided to take the salary reduction because I really loved my job. He
was good as his word. In three months, the market turned around, and
everybody got their salary back (with a bonus for being nice about it),
or were called back if they had not found another job in the interim.

David did not have to do that. He could have just laid all non-essential
workers off, and worked at a bigger profit. He did not have to bring
everybody's salary back, or call back former employees with large
salaries.

So, yes, there are businesses that will operate at a non-profit or loss
when they care about the employees.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
On 28 Aug 2010, Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>> Does the possibility exist that they wouldn't "hear about it" if a
>> small percentage of users had problems, perhaps of a varying nature,
>> and some were even intermittent or dependent upon the browser they
>> used with their particular setup? I think so.

>
> Everything exists as a probability. Are you saying a business like
> Google willfully ingores potential users? I doubt it.


Yes - a few at least. It would be very odd if they didn't.

>> Sure, that's the first thing they teach in business schools,
>> courses, etc. Without dragging up obvious exceptions, a business
>> couldn't survive if it didn't make a profit. And basically, I have
>> no objection to that. But take the case of Joe.
>>
>> Joe works for "The Company" and has for over 30 years. He's not the
>> brightest firefly in the alfalfa field but he does his job well,
>> hardly ever misses a day, is loyal and true to company policy, and
>> comes to company meetings smelling like English Leather. He's both
>> a "company man" and nice guy, and even his subordinates like him.
>>
>> One day the CEO of the company is approached by the efficiency
>> expert he hired the month before who says, "Ya know, if we get rid
>> of Joe, we can hire a hungry new biz school grad who'll do the job
>> at least as well at half the price or less..."
>>
>> What should the CEO do?
>>
>> The EE continues: "And, btw, here's a list of people who fit in the
>> same category. We're talking millions per year here..."
>>
>> Now what should the CEO do?
>>
>> It's just an example. There are many other things which have a
>> bearing on the "Prime Directive" of a company including fair
>> business practices, ethical advertising, etc., etc., etc. But the
>> point is that if the company has to do things I don't want it to do
>> in order to make money, I'd rather see it go bust than screw me.
>> Wouldn't you?

>
> Not if I'm an investor in that business. As a stock holder I might
> be very happy to Joe go. Along with all of the other "Joes."
>
> And I've been "Joe" so I know of what I speak. No, not dim, nor
> unproductive, but when the business had overall hard times and needed
> to make cuts I was cut. And it was the right thing to do at the
> time. Hell, I'd have done it myself. Kill the highest earners and
> keep the cheapest ones and hope for the best. No problem here.
>
> Knowing what I did I divested myself of their stock. Knowing what I
> did of another company in which I had similar intrinsic knowledge I
> bought.
>
> I didn't raise a social issue.


But it _is_ a social issue. What do I care if the company I work for
makes money if it doesn't benefit me? This is exactly what you are
saying as a shareholder except your benefits are limited to dividends,
capital gains, and stock splits/options. As an owner, you may have
priority on returns over "mere employees", but there will be no more
company if there are no more employees or they are patently
dissatisfied. In a large real sense, that "prime directive" about
making money is bull. It's like saying a baseball bat has to be made
of a solid...

>>
>>> If it chooses to take some of its profits and invest in "social
>>> good" type of programs, well, that's fine. But it's not the reason
>>> for the existence of the business. And it shouldn't be the
>>> motivator for the employees of the company. Their job should be
>>> focused on selling widgets or widget-sevices at a profit.

>>
>> Okay, no argument. But what if they're underpaid? Or overworked?
>> Or both? How "focused" can I be if I know I'm receiving sub-par
>> wages but need the job nonetheless (-something is better than
>> nothing and one has to eat.) Actually, it's the "controls" on a
>> company, both internal and external, we're talking about, not the
>> mootness of it's prime directive. If a company can stay liquid only
>> by underpaying its employees and/or cheating its customers, that
>> company _should_ go out of business! Period.
>>

>
> None of this has anything to do with what I posited.
>
> However.
>
> If a business is guilty of your above noted faults, well, the
> business will be dealt with via natural selection.
>
> And, by the way, where do you think jobs come from? Good will?
> Touchy-feely sentiments? A desire to "do good?" Not.
>
> Profit motive.
>
> Go start a business based on the desire to do good as your primary
> motivation. And then use that to try and get funding.


I'm not saying that a business doesn't have to make money; I'm saying
that making money is not really a phenomenon which should take
precedence over each and every issue which arises in a company,
corporate or not. If making money overrides all other concerns, which
is how some people seem to interpret that principle, it would make for
an entrepreneurial tyranny poised to render even today's governmental
excesses as moderate. And funny as it sounds, that is exactly what has
happened recently in parts of the private sector! Just look at the
current economy and the causes for it.

Communism didn't work in Russia because individual people can be
assholes. Whether it'll survive in China or not remains to be seem.
But the assholishness of people can sink a democracy, too, if there are
insufficient checks-and-balances on systems preventing the dominance of
the one class (rich/rulers) over another (poor/peasants). This is
history, man, and a company's making-money credo palls in comparison to
that!

> Call me after you go bust. Or better yet, name one business success
> using that basis that has been a success.


The Red Cross.

> And, by the way, what's their market cap vs. Google or IBM or HP or
> any other stock I'd buy? Hey, I'm always open to a new opportunity.


Their market cap? I dunno; maybe it's a purple beanie with a yellow
propellor and an embroidered patch saying "Go MS!"


--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Adrienne Boswell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)>
writing in news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Adrienne Boswell wrote:
>> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Ed Mullen<(E-Mail Removed)>
>> writing in news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>>> Why? If I showed you businesses that were kept going (at least
>>>> for a while) at no profit and even a small loss for the sake of
>>>> the staff, what would you say? That they were not businesses by
>>>> definition? They were suddenly charities? There are legal
>>>> entities in Australia that are businesses, there is no
>>>> requirement for them to run at a profit. It is not definitional.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Examples?
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Back in the 80's, I worked for a small discount stock broker.
>> Because of some regulartory issues, business went down quite a bit,
>> and there was talk about closing down.
>>
>> However, the owner, David Paul Kane really cared about the staff. He
>> came to each of us and gave us a choice, we could have our salaries
>> significantly cut, or we could be laid off to collect unemployment,
>> or find another job. He assured us that times would get better
>> again, and that when they did, he would bring salaries back or hire
>> you back, which ever you decided to do.
>>
>> I decided to take the salary reduction because I really loved my job.
>> He was good as his word. In three months, the market turned around,
>> and everybody got their salary back (with a bonus for being nice
>> about it), or were called back if they had not found another job in
>> the interim.
>>
>> David did not have to do that. He could have just laid all
>> non-essential workers off, and worked at a bigger profit. He did not
>> have to bring everybody's salary back, or call back former employees
>> with large salaries.
>>
>> So, yes, there are businesses that will operate at a non-profit or
>> loss when they care about the employees.
>>

>
> That's a great story. My point was not that businesses /sometimes/
> run at a break-even or loss. My point is that to do so continually
> can't go on for ever. Even in your story the goal was to outlast the
> downturn and return to profitability.
>


Yup, and I know a lot of businesses where that just wouldn't happen,
mostly larger businesses. Maybe that's why I've never wanted to work in
the "corporate" world.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article<(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Ed Mullen<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> Examples?

> >
> > If I showed you businesses that were kept going (at least
> > for a while) at no profit and even a small loss for the sake of
> > the staff, would you say that they were not businesses by
> > definition? They were suddenly charities? There are legal
> > entities in Australia that are businesses, there is no
> > requirement for them to run at a profit. It is not definitional.

>
> Sure, sometimes a business will go through a downturn. But eventually
> every business needs to turn a profit. If not, what's the point?


You putting on a James Cagney act here, Ed? In one of his films,
on the run from the law, he takes shelter in a nunnery. The nuns
are good to him and he observes their good deeds. He insists
there is some sort of "angle" that the nuns are going for, that
there is some sort of scheme, money or something selfish like and
is always suspiciously asking them what it is!

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> My point was not that businesses /sometimes/ run
> at a break-even or loss. My point is that to do so continually can't go
> on for ever. Even in your story the goal was to outlast the downturn
> and return to profitability.


The story could be different, it could be purer, it could b that
someone creates a business purely to keep people employed. It is
not a matter of definition that businesses must make a profit in
the short or long or thin or wide term. You *vill* come around to
this conclusion.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Does anybody know why google.com isnt well-formed? Dylan Parry HTML 1 08-29-2010 10:25 PM
Does anybody know why mx1.hotmail.com doesn't response correctly? Thanks mike Perl Misc 7 06-14-2007 04:18 PM
<location> element does not seem to work - Does anybody know how to solve this. alexvodovoz@yahoo.com ASP .Net 1 05-25-2007 01:12 AM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
If it isnt SLR, it isnt photography, but picture taking! Steven C \(Doktersteve\) Digital Photography 33 01-15-2004 01:33 AM



Advertisments