OT

Discussion in 'MCSE' started by kpg, Sep 13, 2006.

  1. kpg

    kpg Guest

    Possible Technical Difficulties

    Possible? How about Probable.
     
    kpg, Sep 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. > Possible Technical Difficulties
    >
    > Possible? How about Probable.


    Don't give up giving up
     
    =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=, Sep 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. kpg

    CBIC Guest

    "kpg" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns983D61A235AE2ipostthereforeiam@127.0.0.1...
    > Possible Technical Difficulties
    >
    > Possible? How about Probable.


    More like Certain.
     
    CBIC, Sep 13, 2006
    #3
  4. kpg

    Frisbee® Guest

    "CBIC" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "kpg" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns983D61A235AE2ipostthereforeiam@127.0.0.1...
    >> Possible Technical Difficulties
    >>
    >> Possible? How about Probable.

    >
    > More like Certain.


    I take it you're not a big fan of TGP's new site design?
     
    Frisbee®, Sep 13, 2006
    #4
  5. kpg

    CBIC Guest

    "Frisbee®" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "CBIC" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> "kpg" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns983D61A235AE2ipostthereforeiam@127.0.0.1...
    >>> Possible Technical Difficulties
    >>>
    >>> Possible? How about Probable.

    >>
    >> More like Certain.

    >
    > I take it you're not a big fan of TGP's new site design?
    >

    Seems to lack content.
     
    CBIC, Sep 13, 2006
    #5
  6. kpg

    Frisbee® Guest

    "CBIC" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    >
    > "Frisbee®" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "CBIC" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> "kpg" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:Xns983D61A235AE2ipostthereforeiam@127.0.0.1...
    >>>> Possible Technical Difficulties
    >>>>
    >>>> Possible? How about Probable.
    >>>
    >>> More like Certain.

    >>
    >> I take it you're not a big fan of TGP's new site design?
    >>

    > Seems to lack content.


    There is GENIUS in the SIMPLICITY of it's DESIGN!

    You just don't appreciate good art when you see it.
     
    Frisbee®, Sep 13, 2006
    #6
  7. kpg

    LoopBack Guest

    Frisbee® wrote:
    > "CBIC" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > "kpg" <> wrote in message
    > > news:Xns983D61A235AE2ipostthereforeiam@127.0.0.1...
    > >> Possible Technical Difficulties
    > >>
    > >> Possible? How about Probable.

    > >
    > > More like Certain.

    >
    > I take it you're not a big fan of TGP's new site design?


    TGP really needs to sort out his html, 11 validation errors!

    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://server145.misinternet.org/suspended.page/
     
    LoopBack, Sep 13, 2006
    #7
  8. kpg

    CBIC Guest

    "Frisbee®" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > There is GENIUS in the SIMPLICITY of it's DESIGN!
    >
    > You just don't appreciate good art when you see it.
    >
    >

    I am a self described Cretin. A Phillistine if you will.
     
    CBIC, Sep 13, 2006
    #8
  9. "LoopBack" <> wrote in message
    > TGP really needs to sort out his html, 11 validation errors!


    HTML validation is dumb. 99.999999999% of the internet is constructed with
    invalid HTML.

    All that matters is that the pages render.
     
    ~~~ The Obelisk [7.13.86.42] ~~~, Sep 14, 2006
    #9
  10. kpg

    LoopBack Guest

    ~~~ The Obelisk [7.13.86.42] ~~~ wrote:
    > "LoopBack" <> wrote in message
    > > TGP really needs to sort out his html, 11 validation errors!

    >
    > HTML validation is dumb. 99.999999999% of the internet is constructed with
    > invalid HTML.
    >
    > All that matters is that the pages render.


    I presume you mean on IE6.0? why worry about other browsers?
     
    LoopBack, Sep 14, 2006
    #10
  11. kpg

    Guest Guest

    "LoopBack" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > ~~~ The Obelisk [7.13.86.42] ~~~ wrote:
    > > "LoopBack" <> wrote in message
    > > > TGP really needs to sort out his html, 11 validation errors!

    > >
    > > HTML validation is dumb. 99.999999999% of the internet is constructed

    with
    > > invalid HTML.
    > >
    > > All that matters is that the pages render.

    >
    > I presume you mean on IE6.0? why worry about other browsers?


    Ok. I suppose I'm sorta to blame for chiming in on this in the first place,
    but...

    HTML and HTTP are basically remarkable pieces of garbage, period.

    Everyone and their grandma writes HTML incorrectly, and there's all sorts of
    hoaky extensions to do kewl sheet that really is just not right.

    In order for everyone and their grandma to be able to write html, the
    browser has to render it, valid or not, or people won't use the browser,
    because it doesn't work with this website or that website.

    'cross browser compatibility' is a nightmare, period. things just plain
    don't look the same from one browser to another, and writing a website with
    different code for each browser is dumb.

    Therefore, HTML validation is dumb, and all that matters is that the pages
    render.

    Microcephalic S. Bob
     
    Guest, Sep 14, 2006
    #11
  12. kpg

    Thor Guest

    ie7 comes on windows update, in early desember i think.
    standard is much more important here, before you know it you will have ie8
    which will be much stricter I think.
    reason why i think this is that ie7 comes with to separate render engines,
    one for 100% correct (x)html on one for what ever else it might concieve as
    text or tagged text.
    there is a number of things that will not work in any of the render engines,
    discontinuation of <table height="100%"> (which isn't part of ANY standard)
    is the thing I've found that I think will break the most sites, but there
    surely are more.

    Standards didn't mean crap yesterday but tomorrow I believe it will.
    Also, they say that new ie versions will come much much more frequent in the
    future

    difficult to look into the future, but following the xhtml standard will
    keep you safe for the foreseeable future.

    "LoopBack" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > ~~~ The Obelisk [7.13.86.42] ~~~ wrote:
    >> "LoopBack" <> wrote in message
    >> > TGP really needs to sort out his html, 11 validation errors!

    >>
    >> HTML validation is dumb. 99.999999999% of the internet is constructed
    >> with
    >> invalid HTML.
    >>
    >> All that matters is that the pages render.

    >
    > I presume you mean on IE6.0? why worry about other browsers?
    >
     
    Thor, Sep 14, 2006
    #12
  13. "Thor" <> wrote in message
    news:%23MK%...
    > ie7 comes on windows update, in early desember i think.
    > standard is much more important here, before you know it you will have ie8
    > which will be much stricter I think.


    If it doesn't show grandma's website, or little billy's attempts at HTML,
    people will complain like crazy, say it's buggy and defective, and it will
    have to work with non-compliant code. The world isn't going to suddenly
    unlearn all of the improper HTML coding, and companies aren't going to pay
    to have their websites redone.

    By the way, with a name like Gorm, I recommend never going to Canada.

    Microcephalic "So your name is Gorm, Ay?" Bob
     
    ~~~ Phil O. Sophicle, PhD [28:06:42:12] ~~~, Sep 14, 2006
    #13
  14. kpg

    Thor Guest

    "~~~ Phil O. Sophicle, PhD [28:06:42:12] ~~~"
    <http://www.planetoftheheads.com> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > "Thor" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23MK%...
    >> ie7 comes on windows update, in early desember i think.
    >> standard is much more important here, before you know it you will have
    >> ie8
    >> which will be much stricter I think.

    >
    > If it doesn't show grandma's website, or little billy's attempts at HTML,
    > people will complain like crazy, say it's buggy and defective, and it will
    > have to work with non-compliant code. The world isn't going to suddenly
    > unlearn all of the improper HTML coding, and companies aren't going to pay
    > to have their websites redone.


    MSDOS support is deminishing, it was virtualized and support is dying.
    Direct input from the COM-port and low level monitor output has been gone
    for a long time.
    My old libraries with all the cool stuff like "Masking the non-maskable
    interrupts on both 8086 AND 80286" and saving data to the unused part of the
    BIOS settings area (which now holds the BIOS password encrypted) are just
    silly ideas today. Some of my old win32 programs does not work on 64-bit
    (unsupported segment alignment). Things actually changes... and
    functionality gets virtualized and phased out. You know this.

    Looking at IE, I see that visible ActiveX controls are disabled until they
    are activated on the page and the render engine has been split into two.
    XmlRequests are eaten natively to give better AJAX performance. There is a
    shift coming.
    I'm not saying you can't write all the buggy non-compliant code you want for
    a long time, still.
    But I am proposing that failing to followi the XML standards will give you
    problems some time in the future.

    Does that mean that I write all my contents in valid XML? no.

    I guess the determining factor for me deciding if I bother about standards
    and so forth are
    - the length of the lifespan of the content and
    - the variety of platforms/browsers I want to support

    Also, I would say that fixing "little billy's attempts at HTML" on the
    server side should be reasonably straight-forward, so it wouldn't surprise
    me if it can be done allready. Kind of good idea for an ISAPI filter, this
    (I know Opera converts webpages so that they are eatable on the phones, so I
    can't see why this shouldn't be EA$Y).

    > By the way, with a name like Gorm, I recommend never going to Canada.


    I don't get it. Anyway, I've kind of gotten used to it, so I think I might
    keep it for now.
    Gorm.
     
    Thor, Sep 15, 2006
    #14
  15. "Thor" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > MSDOS support is deminishing, it was virtualized and support is dying.
    > Direct input from the COM-port and low level monitor output has been gone
    > for a long time.
    > My old libraries with all the cool stuff like "Masking the non-maskable
    > interrupts on both 8086 AND 80286" and saving data to the unused part of

    the
    > BIOS settings area (which now holds the BIOS password encrypted) are just
    > silly ideas today. Some of my old win32 programs does not work on 64-bit
    > (unsupported segment alignment). Things actually changes... and
    > functionality gets virtualized and phased out. You know this.

    ,
    Yes. The modem routines I wrote in 6502 assembler for commodore BBS software
    are irrelevant now. HOWEVER, they WILL run on a C64 emulator, and I suspect
    there's an 8086 emulator that would run the code you've mentioned, although
    it still wouldn't have access to the COM ports if they aren't available in
    the os running the emulator.

    I also know that computers aren't just for people who know what an IRQ is
    anymore, and the amount of information that's been published by the average
    individual in 'invalid HTML' goes significantly beyond any historically
    recorded file format, and that people of the non-technical sort aren't
    likely to go back and go through all of their photo albums in order to
    comply with some standards agency. What they WILL do is say "It was working
    before we got the new computer, why doesn't it work now?" and get pretty
    angry if there isn't a way to fix it, and the company that screws grandma
    out of her photo album is going to get a bad name.

    I suspect, like it does now, that future versions of IE will still have a
    degree of 'slack' for invalid html, and I offer that if they really want to
    come up with something based on 'standards', they should look at everything
    that HTML and CSS and XHTML and so on DO, and come up with something new
    that do the same thing, with fewer possibilities for misconceptions and
    errors, and perhaps requiring less typing and effort to create. There would
    have to be a seamless migration path, and this would have to be a completely
    clean break from HTML entirely. Of course, if history is a guide, what is
    most likely to happen is that they will continue to screw up HTML and branch
    off of it until they have to come up with something new, the something new
    they come up with will be incomplete and problematic, and they'll basically
    start over, and they'll disagree on standards, and the cycle will continue
    forever.

    You did have a good idea on ISAPI filters to correct the documents, but
    that's not going to be available on all varieties of servers, and really, if
    the browser is built properly, that shouldn't be necessary. Also, the server
    really needs to be able to handle traffic, and if every document request is
    filtered to ensure that it is compliant, well, there's going to be a lot of
    wasted cpu cycles in a place where those cpu cycles will be needed most. The
    key in keeping the architecture going is so that the browser does the work
    of ensuring rendering occurs, and the server is freed up to spit out files.

    The real problem with current thinking in computer science is that it is
    based on old thinking in computer science. The fundamental component in this
    is the exacting nature of the precision required for computers,
    applications, and files to operate, when these tools are supposed to help
    and support the imprecise actions of people. In order to make that step
    forward, computers need slack. They need to be adaptive, and they need to be
    capable of 'comprehending', or just plain dealing with, the ambiguous and
    imprecise nature of all of the things that people do. Unfortunately, it's
    like getting a mathemetician to understand and appreciate the beauty of 14th
    century italian literature. You can't teach an old Cyborg new violin songs.

    Regardless, I stick by my original proclamation, 99.99999% of the internet
    is written using invalid html, and any future browser that is going to be
    used, is going to have to make an effort to put up with that, because
    99.99999% of the people that made that invalid HTML aren't going to rewrite
    it, and they will complain about, or simply not use, tools that invalidate
    the internet.

    Microcephalic S. Bob
     
    ~~~ [28:06:42:12] ~~~, Sep 15, 2006
    #15
  16. kpg

    Thor Guest

    "~~~ [28:06:42:12] ~~~" <http://www.planetoftheheads.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Thor" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> MSDOS support is deminishing, it was virtualized and support is dying.
    >> Direct input from the COM-port and low level monitor output has been gone
    >> for a long time.
    >> My old libraries with all the cool stuff like "Masking the non-maskable
    >> interrupts on both 8086 AND 80286" and saving data to the unused part of

    > the
    >> BIOS settings area (which now holds the BIOS password encrypted) are just
    >> silly ideas today. Some of my old win32 programs does not work on 64-bit
    >> (unsupported segment alignment). Things actually changes... and
    >> functionality gets virtualized and phased out. You know this.

    > ,
    > Yes. The modem routines I wrote in 6502 assembler for commodore BBS
    > software
    > are irrelevant now. HOWEVER, they WILL run on a C64 emulator, and I
    > suspect
    > there's an 8086 emulator that would run the code you've mentioned,
    > although
    > it still wouldn't have access to the COM ports if they aren't available in
    > the os running the emulator.
    >


    D@mn , I'm beginning to like you, I disliked you so good. Still, I disagree
    with you.
    Some stuff is just discontinued. Most still works somehow, many things are
    getting annoyingly hard.
    I remember my old pascal programs stopped working since the CPU was too
    fast!

    > I also know that computers aren't just for people who know what an IRQ is
    > anymore, and the amount of information that's been published by the
    > average
    > individual in 'invalid HTML' goes significantly beyond any historically
    > recorded file format, and that people of the non-technical sort aren't
    > likely to go back and go through all of their photo albums in order to
    > comply with some standards agency. What they WILL do is say "It was
    > working
    > before we got the new computer, why doesn't it work now?" and get pretty
    > angry if there isn't a way to fix it, and the company that screws grandma
    > out of her photo album is going to get a bad name.
    >


    I think HTML will be viewed much like machine code in the future, or maybe
    compared to .COM-files. There is just no use for coding in the bytecodes
    when you have high-level languages, with the COM-files you just have to many
    restrictions.


    > I suspect, like it does now, that future versions of IE will still have a
    > degree of 'slack' for invalid html, and I offer that if they really want
    > to
    > come up with something based on 'standards', they should look at
    > everything
    > that HTML and CSS and XHTML and so on DO, and come up with something new
    > that do the same thing, with fewer possibilities for misconceptions and
    > errors, and perhaps requiring less typing and effort to create.


    XAML?

    > There would
    > have to be a seamless migration path, and this would have to be a
    > completely
    > clean break from HTML entirely. Of course, if history is a guide, what is
    > most likely to happen is that they will continue to screw up HTML and
    > branch
    > off of it until they have to come up with something new, the something new
    > they come up with will be incomplete and problematic, and they'll
    > basically
    > start over, and they'll disagree on standards, and the cycle will continue
    > forever.


    I must agree that this is a possible scenario, too. But I think money will
    make a way.

    > You did have a good idea on ISAPI filters to correct the documents, but
    > that's not going to be available on all varieties of servers, and really,
    > if
    > the browser is built properly, that shouldn't be necessary. Also, the
    > server
    > really needs to be able to handle traffic, and if every document request
    > is
    > filtered to ensure that it is compliant, well, there's going to be a lot
    > of
    > wasted cpu cycles in a place where those cpu cycles will be needed most.
    > The
    > key in keeping the architecture going is so that the browser does the work
    > of ensuring rendering occurs, and the server is freed up to spit out
    > files.
    >


    CPU-cycles are not the problem, that's why you have native gzip built in
    when you use IE and IIS.

    > The real problem with current thinking in computer science is that it is
    > based on old thinking in computer science. The fundamental component in
    > this
    > is the exacting nature of the precision required for computers,
    > applications, and files to operate, when these tools are supposed to help
    > and support the imprecise actions of people. In order to make that step
    > forward, computers need slack. They need to be adaptive, and they need to
    > be
    > capable of 'comprehending', or just plain dealing with, the ambiguous and
    > imprecise nature of all of the things that people do. Unfortunately, it's
    > like getting a mathemetician to understand and appreciate the beauty of
    > 14th
    > century italian literature. You can't teach an old Cyborg new violin
    > songs.
    >


    www.live.com

    > Regardless, I stick by my original proclamation, 99.99999% of the internet
    > is written using invalid html, and any future browser that is going to be
    > used, is going to have to make an effort to put up with that, because
    > 99.99999% of the people that made that invalid HTML aren't going to
    > rewrite
    > it, and they will complain about, or simply not use, tools that invalidate
    > the internet.
    >
    > Microcephalic S. Bob
    >
    >


    I agree that some will survive, but I don't see why my ISP can't convert it
    on the rooter.

    Gorm
     
    Thor, Sep 15, 2006
    #16
  17. "Thor" <> wrote

    > D@mn , I'm beginning to like you, I disliked you so good. Still, I

    disagree
    > with you.


    I liked it better when you simply disliked me. I was looking forward to
    having an arch-nemesis. I never get to have an arch-nemesis. I was all set
    up to have an arch-nemesis Gorm, and to chronicle the epic struggle between
    the good, the gorm, and the ugly.

    I'll have to work harder at being worthy of an arch-nemesis. I can't seem to
    pick. Maybe I'll just become an enemy to humankind, but that seems like a
    lot of effort.

    *Sigh*. I'm a disappointment even to myself.

    > I remember my old pascal programs stopped working since the CPU was too
    > fast!


    Funny, it always seems like whatever I want to do on the computer, it's too
    slow, because there's too much garbage.

    > I think HTML will be viewed much like machine code in the future, or maybe
    > compared to .COM-files. There is just no use for coding in the bytecodes
    > when you have high-level languages, with the COM-files you just have to

    many
    > restrictions.


    I don't see HTML as 'code', but more as 'markup', because it's supposed to
    be a way to create and lay out documents. Really, it's become cludgy
    mind-butter with all of the dynamic this and scripting that.

    > XAML?


    DUMB. Digitally Understood Markup Blocks. see, there's always the desire to
    separate content from layout, to separate server side processing from
    markup, etc. The goal being to eliminate the replication of effort required
    to express a thought and have it accessible on multiple platforms or
    devices. Of course, there's no such answer, and it's lame anyway.

    >
    > > There would
    > > have to be a seamless migration path, and this would have to be a
    > > completely
    > > clean break from HTML entirely. Of course, if history is a guide, what

    is
    > > most likely to happen is that they will continue to screw up HTML and
    > > branch
    > > off of it until they have to come up with something new, the something

    new
    > > they come up with will be incomplete and problematic, and they'll
    > > basically
    > > start over, and they'll disagree on standards, and the cycle will

    continue
    > > forever.

    >
    > I must agree that this is a possible scenario, too. But I think money will
    > make a way.
    >
    > > You did have a good idea on ISAPI filters to correct the documents, but
    > > that's not going to be available on all varieties of servers, and

    really,
    > > if
    > > the browser is built properly, that shouldn't be necessary. Also, the
    > > server
    > > really needs to be able to handle traffic, and if every document request
    > > is
    > > filtered to ensure that it is compliant, well, there's going to be a lot
    > > of
    > > wasted cpu cycles in a place where those cpu cycles will be needed most.
    > > The
    > > key in keeping the architecture going is so that the browser does the

    work
    > > of ensuring rendering occurs, and the server is freed up to spit out
    > > files.
    > >

    >
    > CPU-cycles are not the problem, that's why you have native gzip built in
    > when you use IE and IIS.


    Well, the goal there is to save bandwidth on the network infrastructure.

    CPU cycles are kinda fundamental to every other part of the architecture.


    > You can't teach an old Cyborg new violin songs.
    > >

    >
    > www.live.com


    Pointing me to a microsoft site is only going to annoy me. I see them
    loading up my computer with things I don't really want, which makes it
    slower and more annoying. I don't see them coming up with something that
    gives me what I really want.

    >
    > > Regardless, I stick by my original proclamation, 99.99999% of the

    internet
    > > is written using invalid html, and any future browser that is going to

    be
    > > used, is going to have to make an effort to put up with that, because
    > > 99.99999% of the people that made that invalid HTML aren't going to
    > > rewrite
    > > it, and they will complain about, or simply not use, tools that

    invalidate
    > > the internet.


    > I agree that some will survive, but I don't see why my ISP can't convert

    it
    > on the rooter.


    I just think that the server should ship documents, and that's it. I don't
    want my code to be muddled in transit.


    Microcephalic S. Bob
     
    ~~~ Turkey Baster Boy [28:06:42:12] ~~~, Sep 15, 2006
    #17
  18. kpg

    Thor Guest

    "~~~ Turkey Baster Boy [28:06:42:12] ~~~" <http://www.planetoftheheads.com>
    wrote in message news:O$...
    >
    > "Thor" <> wrote
    >
    >> D@mn , I'm beginning to like you, I disliked you so good. Still, I

    > disagree
    >> with you.

    >
    > I liked it better when you simply disliked me. I was looking forward to
    > having an arch-nemesis. I never get to have an arch-nemesis. I was all set
    > up to have an arch-nemesis Gorm, and to chronicle the epic struggle
    > between
    > the good, the gorm, and the ugly.
    >


    you being the good, of course...

    > I'll have to work harder at being worthy of an arch-nemesis. I can't seem
    > to
    > pick. Maybe I'll just become an enemy to humankind, but that seems like a
    > lot of effort.
    >
    > *Sigh*. I'm a disappointment even to myself.
    >
    >> I remember my old pascal programs stopped working since the CPU was too
    >> fast!

    >
    > Funny, it always seems like whatever I want to do on the computer, it's
    > too
    > slow, because there's too much garbage.
    >


    yup, computer getting faster and faster, programs more and more annoyingly
    slow..
    I considered changing to Windows CE on my workstation, but no compilers.
    Office has the right ammount of functionality here, I think.

    >> I think HTML will be viewed much like machine code in the future, or
    >> maybe
    >> compared to .COM-files. There is just no use for coding in the bytecodes
    >> when you have high-level languages, with the COM-files you just have to

    > many
    >> restrictions.

    >
    > I don't see HTML as 'code', but more as 'markup', because it's supposed to
    > be a way to create and lay out documents. Really, it's become cludgy
    > mind-butter with all of the dynamic this and scripting that.
    >


    sorry, it's code. language is changing in a stupid way.

    >> XAML?

    >
    > DUMB. Digitally Understood Markup Blocks. see, there's always the desire
    > to
    > separate content from layout, to separate server side processing from
    > markup, etc. The goal being to eliminate the replication of effort
    > required
    > to express a thought and have it accessible on multiple platforms or
    > devices. Of course, there's no such answer, and it's lame anyway.
    >
    >>
    >> > There would
    >> > have to be a seamless migration path, and this would have to be a
    >> > completely
    >> > clean break from HTML entirely. Of course, if history is a guide, what

    > is
    >> > most likely to happen is that they will continue to screw up HTML and
    >> > branch
    >> > off of it until they have to come up with something new, the something

    > new
    >> > they come up with will be incomplete and problematic, and they'll
    >> > basically
    >> > start over, and they'll disagree on standards, and the cycle will

    > continue
    >> > forever.

    >>
    >> I must agree that this is a possible scenario, too. But I think money
    >> will
    >> make a way.
    >>
    >> > You did have a good idea on ISAPI filters to correct the documents, but
    >> > that's not going to be available on all varieties of servers, and

    > really,
    >> > if
    >> > the browser is built properly, that shouldn't be necessary. Also, the
    >> > server
    >> > really needs to be able to handle traffic, and if every document
    >> > request
    >> > is
    >> > filtered to ensure that it is compliant, well, there's going to be a
    >> > lot
    >> > of
    >> > wasted cpu cycles in a place where those cpu cycles will be needed
    >> > most.
    >> > The
    >> > key in keeping the architecture going is so that the browser does the

    > work
    >> > of ensuring rendering occurs, and the server is freed up to spit out
    >> > files.
    >> >

    >>
    >> CPU-cycles are not the problem, that's why you have native gzip built in
    >> when you use IE and IIS.

    >
    > Well, the goal there is to save bandwidth on the network infrastructure.
    >
    > CPU cycles are kinda fundamental to every other part of the architecture.
    >
    >
    >> You can't teach an old Cyborg new violin songs.
    >> >

    >>
    >> www.live.com

    >
    > Pointing me to a microsoft site is only going to annoy me. I see them
    > loading up my computer with things I don't really want, which makes it
    > slower and more annoying. I don't see them coming up with something that
    > gives me what I really want.
    >
    >>
    >> > Regardless, I stick by my original proclamation, 99.99999% of the

    > internet
    >> > is written using invalid html, and any future browser that is going to

    > be
    >> > used, is going to have to make an effort to put up with that, because
    >> > 99.99999% of the people that made that invalid HTML aren't going to
    >> > rewrite
    >> > it, and they will complain about, or simply not use, tools that

    > invalidate
    >> > the internet.

    >
    >> I agree that some will survive, but I don't see why my ISP can't convert

    > it
    >> on the rooter.

    >
    > I just think that the server should ship documents, and that's it. I don't
    > want my code to be muddled in transit.
    >
    >
    > Microcephalic S. Bob
    >
    >
     
    Thor, Sep 16, 2006
    #18
  19. kpg

    Guest Guest

    "Thor" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "~~~ Turkey Baster Boy [28:06:42:12] ~~~"

    <http://www.planetoftheheads.com>
    > wrote in message news:O$...
    > >
    > > "Thor" <> wrote
    > >
    > >> D@mn , I'm beginning to like you, I disliked you so good. Still, I

    > > disagree
    > >> with you.

    > >
    > > I liked it better when you simply disliked me. I was looking forward to
    > > having an arch-nemesis. I never get to have an arch-nemesis. I was all

    set
    > > up to have an arch-nemesis Gorm, and to chronicle the epic struggle
    > > between
    > > the good, the gorm, and the ugly.
    > >

    >
    > you being the good, of course...


    No. Me being the uninvolved and disinterested.

    I probably could have an arch-nemesis, if I were genuinely interested in
    some purpose or belief. I just don't care.

    Both sides are right, anyway, people just argue with me about the part I
    can't articulate in the time they allot me before they respond, or they
    assume the side opposite to what I represent because all they really want to
    do is disagree and be right about it. We're all wrong, and that's
    exemplified far too frequently.

    > > Funny, it always seems like whatever I want to do on the computer, it's
    > > too
    > > slow, because there's too much garbage.
    > >

    >
    > yup, computer getting faster and faster, programs more and more annoyingly
    > slow..
    > I considered changing to Windows CE on my workstation, but no compilers.
    > Office has the right ammount of functionality here, I think.
    >
    > >> I think HTML will be viewed much like machine code in the future, or
    > >> maybe
    > >> compared to .COM-files. There is just no use for coding in the

    bytecodes
    > >> when you have high-level languages, with the COM-files you just have to

    > > many
    > >> restrictions.

    > >
    > > I don't see HTML as 'code', but more as 'markup', because it's supposed

    to
    > > be a way to create and lay out documents. Really, it's become cludgy
    > > mind-butter with all of the dynamic this and scripting that.
    > >

    >
    > sorry, it's code. language is changing in a stupid way.


    It's both, but either way, it's ridiculous and doesn't work, which was my
    point to begin with.
     
    Guest, Sep 16, 2006
    #19
  20. kpg

    Thor Guest

    <@> wrote in message news:...
    >
    > "Thor" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> "~~~ Turkey Baster Boy [28:06:42:12] ~~~"

    > <http://www.planetoftheheads.com>
    >> wrote in message news:O$...
    >> >
    >> > "Thor" <> wrote
    >> >
    >> >> D@mn , I'm beginning to like you, I disliked you so good. Still, I
    >> > disagree
    >> >> with you.
    >> >
    >> > I liked it better when you simply disliked me. I was looking forward to
    >> > having an arch-nemesis. I never get to have an arch-nemesis. I was all

    > set
    >> > up to have an arch-nemesis Gorm, and to chronicle the epic struggle
    >> > between
    >> > the good, the gorm, and the ugly.
    >> >

    >>
    >> you being the good, of course...

    >
    > No. Me being the uninvolved and disinterested.
    >
    > I probably could have an arch-nemesis, if I were genuinely interested in
    > some purpose or belief. I just don't care.
    >
    > Both sides are right, anyway, people just argue with me about the part I
    > can't articulate in the time they allot me before they respond, or they
    > assume the side opposite to what I represent because all they really want
    > to
    > do is disagree and be right about it. We're all wrong, and that's
    > exemplified far too frequently.
    >
    >> > Funny, it always seems like whatever I want to do on the computer, it's
    >> > too
    >> > slow, because there's too much garbage.
    >> >

    >>
    >> yup, computer getting faster and faster, programs more and more
    >> annoyingly
    >> slow..
    >> I considered changing to Windows CE on my workstation, but no compilers.
    >> Office has the right ammount of functionality here, I think.
    >>
    >> >> I think HTML will be viewed much like machine code in the future, or
    >> >> maybe
    >> >> compared to .COM-files. There is just no use for coding in the

    > bytecodes
    >> >> when you have high-level languages, with the COM-files you just have
    >> >> to
    >> > many
    >> >> restrictions.
    >> >
    >> > I don't see HTML as 'code', but more as 'markup', because it's supposed

    > to
    >> > be a way to create and lay out documents. Really, it's become cludgy
    >> > mind-butter with all of the dynamic this and scripting that.
    >> >

    >>
    >> sorry, it's code. language is changing in a stupid way.

    >
    > It's both, but either way, it's ridiculous and doesn't work, which was my
    > point to begin with.
    >


    ok, B.O.B, here goes:

    And. But all things are not always are not always are not always are not
    always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
    always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
    always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
    always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
    always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
    always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
    always you need to know you learned from Dr Richard s Wallace.
    53
     
    Thor, Sep 17, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page