Thangorodrim

Well, then, perhaps I am just lucky but just a few weeks ago I was able to get a fifteen year old binary running under both centos 6 and fedora 15.

I did have to fish around a bit for an old version of curses and create a symlink. It only took a few moments though.

Just a data point to consider.

The site is unresponsive, but I wanted to recommend:

Philip Glass symphonies Wagner's The Ring ( unless you speak German ) Slayer

He did not apologize for his actions.

He apologized that silly emotional people got upset at the obvious outcome of this entire stunt.

A sincere apology takes three words. When those three words are buried in hundreds of words of qualifications and context its no longer an apology.

The entire thing is redolent of a condescending tone. Sam, you see, is a scientist! Anyone who questioned his behavior is just an having an emotional reaction and does not understand the real world - where there is always a Sam to piss in the well.

The thing is, most of use knew this already, and his demonstration did not teach anyone anything other than about Sam's character.

EDIT: Oh, I don't care about the gift card. I am simply commenting on the 'apology.'

Actually, that is the way capitalist economies work in reality.

This is a lot of crying for attention. If he wants to have a commercial use case, he should get a commercial circuit.

If he is using the circuit for work, then pay the additional cash and get a commercial class circuit which is, effectively, uncapped.

He already had one disconnect and chose to ignore it rather than take appropriate steps to modify usage. He agreed to their cap.

The idea that internet service is a right is bizarre bourgeoisie bollocks.

Presumably this is a reasonable growth strategy for them.

As an extant customer, however, I would prefer if they shored up some of their US infrastructure problems.

For instance, I have a 50/5 mpbs connection and no matter what time of day or titles I select my netflix streaming experience consists of an extensive palette of compression artifacts and a tiny bit of film.

I do appreciate that they have made available a few classic films to offset their modern B-class crappy catalog.

I am not going to get started on their recent UI overhaul.

Maybe there is a niche for mature people whose social life consists of more than voyuerism?

Looking only at that diff, the fix is a break.

It inverts the sense of the test so that the authenticator of the packet is used even if the tag is null.

You can create a custom protocol and protocol handler to process file links including UNCs.

This recently allowed me to deploy a web application into an enterprise space with extensive dependencies on creating and editing word and excel documents (as well as pdfs).

The web application generates highly customized rtf from user submitted forms and provides links for users which, when clicked, will open word with the rtf loaded and its working directory properly set within their network file system. Therefore, the user can modify the rtf, simply press save and exit.

This is vastly superior to download / edit / upload schemes or replicating the functionality of word through this web application.

The users can access the files through UNC based methods they already understand and through the new web application. Its glue to wean the enterprise from windows binaries and UNC paths everywhere towards a unified web application.

It also very simple:

1. Name the protocol and generate links using it: myproto:/path_to_file

2. Modify the windows registry to handle the protocol http://kb.mozillazine.org/Register_protocol

3. Write a tiny handler as a binary, or even batch file, to be called by chrome when it parses the custom protocol

In the situation referenced above, the handler application just truncates out the protocol from the link and calls the shell with the resultant string. That means it properly handles all windows file associations. So, .rtf -> Word, .xls -> excel, .pdf -> acrobat, / -> file explorer.

To the user its actually quite seamless.

You do have to touch client machines once to setup the handler, but in this context its fine. This is not over the internet, but inside the enterprise.

I cannot help but note that the documentation appears to be obsolete relative to the normal production deployed version of Chrome (on windows).

Chrome Developer Tools no longer has a 'Network' icon / function and the 'Storage' icon / function is not documented.

I believe Network was subsumed into Resources recently.

Personally, I have found the excellent CDT to be essentially self-documenting.

The traditional bidet has a variety of severe UX problems as evidenced by the universal confusion over a number of issues on first use.

The old style european type is designed such that you should be facing the controls. Which is only reasonable when you think about but requires a non-intuitive posture.

There are now electronic ones which integrate with a toilet and provide a control pad.

Don't indulge yourself with a bidet as they can be habit forming.

It does not actually say "full browser support" does it? All I see is "browser support" with an asterisk to indicate her determination is based on most recent builds.

I don't think this is in any way meant as an authoritative reference for browser compatibility.

I think its purpose is that suggested by the title: a practical introduction. A subscript might have been: How to use CSS3 instead of various klduges to achieve interface effects.

In my opinion, anyone using the newer markup and style tools should be testing cross-browser anyway.

Anyway, I think its a great presentation.

The name is an albatross.

Re: #5.

The referenced "studies" show that users will scroll if they realize they need to access their desired content.

Okay.

That absolutely does not mean that vertical pages provide pleasing UX or good usability. It simply means the user endured the vertical layout in that case.

None of the provided citations support that conclusion of the article. Not only that - sample size, obvious confirmation bias, and extreme extrapolation of data to unsupported conclusions render the "studies" relatively useless.

In the last citation, even though they attempt to wash it away with statistical significance (SD on a sample of 15?) their data actually shows that usability, as defined by comprehension, is maximized by paging.

I think the truth is found closer to the notion that form follows function and the answer to scroll vs. paging is content and site specific.

I am finding the article, overall, unimpressive. The method involved seems to be that of looking for support of one's opinion, not extraction of good practice from objective research.