ftse

We were discussing a <wbr> found in one of our webpages only yesterday - there were a few puzzled expressions as to what the heck it did! Apparently the answer is remove it.

The press in the UK have concluded it was a considered insult to Brown.

I cancelled cable TV a couple of days ago. I was expecting the advisor to launch into a script designed to persuade me otherwise - probably offer me free TV for a month during which time I would reconsider. No, they seemed accustomed to my request and I was disconnected 5 minutes later. Moral of the story: easy way to save money right now.

Yes.

Yes, many of us have felt this way. Be smart, draw a line under this and start again with a new coder. In a years time you'll look back and be glad you did. In an alternate universe you won't and it will make you miserable.

You could make the same argument regarding typewriters and word processing software. I would think many more copies of word processing packages are in active use than was ever the case for typewriters. Word processing is several orders of magnitude easier than typing and as a result it's an incredible success. If a 3D printer allows you to pick a design from the web, click on the 'fab' button and start using your new product within the day, expect them to sell like hot cakes when the price drops.

The flaw in his argument is he was dull following exciting. His proposal for swaying a customer is to present exciting following dull.

This is interesting, if only a bit of fun... I would like to have seen an analysis of how quickly Mario decelerates when he is jumping up, as well as falling. Symmetry would dictate that g was the same in both cases although on the way up terminal velocity would not be a factor.

You only need to read a few books on the history of spying to know GCHQ, NSA et al have repeatedly made major technological breakthroughs and kept them hushed up to exploit a new edge over their adversaries. You wouldn't expect them to say Skype was easily compromised, would you? They would say the opposite.

I've often wondered if websites that censor posts or allow users to bury comments that are 'off topic' shouldn't have a page where all can be seen. It would make interesting reading, and would partly counter accusations of censorship.

That's interesting. However, presumably the consequences of censorship on the censored individual can be equally detrimental whether it is perpetrated by the state or an individual/corporate entity?

For example, what happens if a company makes a product with a flaw that is literally killing people. Are they justified in removing a post from their web site forum that points this out? By your argument, in law, the answer is 'yes', but how does a user of product X feel about this?

I'm not really making a point. I was hoping to open up the discussion on censorship in general - where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable? Is all censorship bad? Where is the line between censorship as it is obviously being practiced in Australia and 'censorship' on a 'private owned and operated website'?

Parrots and Oil Painting... niche markets that couldn't be further from web 2.0. The majority of the population with high levels of disposable income, and the will to spend it (soccer moms, retirees, busy non-geek professionals etc) are not catered for. It is a massive, untapped market.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the source for HN censor links to certain websites?

I've just used it for the first time running the 3.0 beta. I copied a URL from an email into Safari. It Just Works, as you would expect. It is very intuitive - I deliberatly tried prior to reading a detailed review or watching the video of the presentation.