mr_justin

I'm not seeing that at all. Normal page refreshes, no anchor in the URL.

Is it really important in this case? Just so a bunch of different companies can fawn all over him because he said "I'm looking for work, contact me"?

If you have the skills (he does), finding a job should not be too difficult. No need to blog about it.

That was something I read recently in an article about Neil Armstrong's humbleness. He felt it was unfair to take any credit when there were 400,000 people who made it possible for him to take those steps.

It's a good read and gives a lot of insight into this man who is a household name, yet we actually know very little about him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8133835.stm

Nonsense, working on a modern vehicle requires specialized tools (in some cases), a computer (in many cases) and patience. If you enjoy working on cars, then you get whatever you need to get the job done. If you don't, then you just complain about how expensive it is to take your car to the shop.

Because the JavaScript engine in 3.0 is lightning fast compared to the 2.x engine and the 3.5 is ummm, faster than lightning. By a heck of a lot.

For me personally, the only reason I downgraded back to 3.0 from 3.5 is because Firebug 1.4 is bloody awful at the moment (in beta). Other than that, Firefox 3.5 is great.

By "intro to stats" do you mean the calc-based stats class that most people in CS take? I'd hardly call that an intro class considering you need to complete Calc I & II before enrolling.

Looks great in Safari beta 4.

Structures that earn the designation "historical" require certified craftsman for all repair work. It costs significantly more than typical home construction and therefore increases costs greatly.

If it was a 17,250-square-foot, 14-bedroom mansion, I'm pretty sure it wasn't just some random ramshackle home from the 20's. But that is just an assumption.

Hardly a news worthy item, but it always saddens me when I hear of an old historic home being demo'd. So much history and lost craftsmanship, gone at the hands of a wrecking ball.

Both of those are pretty minor and not very wide spread. Especially so for the second mistake.

That's true, but in addition they are showing tweets that were published post making the account private. I have verified this with a friend who has their updated locked. I am not following them but can still use search to see what they are saying every day.

I like to be able to stop "following" somebody without them being aware of it. I like following to work like RSS. Only I know who I am watching.

Looking back, it's funny to see how long it took them to make the whole A-Z connection that finally appeared in the 2000 logo.

I wasn't using search before, maybe I said that wrong. Before, I had an account and followed more people than I cared to keep up with (the you follow me, I follow you problem) then the celebrities came and really turned me off.

So I deleted my account and now use specialized searches through the API to just show me what my close friends who use twitter are up to.

Did you read that post or just glance over it? By not so obvious pitfalls I was talking about the conscious vs. subconscious effects things like this has on us, which was the entire point of the article.

This is an excellent read, very well thought out and clearly identifies the not so obvious pitfalls of doing things like Matt Aimonetti did in his presentation.

When I first saw the "Just another Wordpress blog" default template, I was skeptical, but it is well worth the 5 minute read.

"Macs are the best computers for a lot of people, but not for software developers."

That is just plain false. Installing packages (that either don't come with OS X or just override the installed version) is a piece of cake. Without Ports.

It's funny you mention the "Oprah factor". I'd been feeling more and more skeptical about twitter the days leading up to the day Oprah showed up there. That was the peak of the celebrity wave, and it completely did me in. That night I deleted my twitter account. I still use the the API+Search to track what my close friends are saying, but have no interest in posting updates any longer.

Easy there, probably just a developer debug message checked into production by mistake.

You're not honestly suggesting that developers start using flash to render their body content, are you?

Besides the copy/paste argument that people have already mentioned (yes, I know there is a "solution"). It's also inaccessible, takes longer to render and relies on a 3rd party product to render your website how you intended.

I know you'll probably say "give search engines and accessible-concerned folks a text version", but who honestly wants to maintain two different sets of code for ALL body content? And all just so the text looks a little better? Why not just tell everybody to use Safari/Mac?

Isn't the meta description tag's purpose to describe the page? It's not intended to describe the entire website, which is what you are insinuating.

So where do you work? Is it:

A) A fantasy land B) A college computer lab C) Develop intranet apps for a small company

> Making IE users experience worse also pushes people toward other browsers

That is simply false. The average internet user should not have to make that leap of faith. They simply will think your website/app is crap and they will stop using it, because there's probably another product out there that does the same thing but actually works for them.

If you want to gain users and keep them, you do not make their experience intentionally bad.

I don't know, people having been doing this sort of thing long before Get Satisfaction was around. The average web user is very lazy.

> On non-IE browsers, the difference in speed is negligible

Are you suggesting that people develop two versions of their JS? One for IE and one for everyone else? Just to appease the pedantics of JS DOM manipulation?

For small bits of HTML, DOM creation/insertion is fine for reasons you have cited (attaching events, etc), but for a bunch of markup, sticking to your guns on this policy is going to cost you your job.

A very interesting article, but poorly written. The first paragraph is filled with disjointed thoughts "It's not a story .... Nor is it just the story .... It's also the story". It's not, or it is?

"The main issue was an agreement over how revenue would be collected ...". That's a disagreement.

Don't they have editors for this stuff or do they just publish straight from the author to the website?

Hmm, I tried 10-20 times and MXHR was always slower. Sometimes a full half-second slower. I had some times approaching 1-second load time, meanwhile the "normal" load was consistently between 350-400ms.

I know it's just a proof of concept and yes, YMMV, but couldn't they come up with a demo that clearly showed this new technology they invented was worth using?

Unless I'm reading their demo wrong, their technique makes the page load slower (for me anyway): http://demos.digg.com/stream/streamDemo.html

Normal is consistently under 100ms and MXHR is around 400ms (using Safari 4 beta, OS X)

The definitive book is Designing with Web Standards. Not all CSS per se, but it is requisite reading if you're just getting into the whole CSS-based design thing.

That book goes hand in hand with Eric Meyer on CSS.