icantthinkofone

Why so serious?

EDIT: I knew that would get a laugh. It was a good joke. I chortled. I don't get offended by every off-hand phrase in life when no one's hurt in the process. If you're offended by the joke then you are the one with issues, not the joke.

If you're a home builder, I would expect you to already have what you need to build one, and not running elsewhere to buy parts that everyone uses on their houses, too. Unless you're just a tract house builder cranking 'em out without a care for what they look like.

Try telling that to most noobish programmers, and all redditors, and see where it gets you.

I can't agree more with all your comments here but I've been downvoted into oblivion for saying the same things.

I use a pad of paper. I have lots of pads of paper. None of them did I have to purchase. They were given to me at work or elsewhere for free. So refills are free, too. Without cranking.

And I get to use my favorite desk. I can clutter it up if I want.

"I can't think of one" as a username screams "asshole who thinks he knows it all"? Wow. You should hear my thoughts now.

One quick example.

Certain elements are, or can be made to be, "inline" which gets them treated the same as characters on a line. Thus those elements, such as an image, will have white space between them as a word does in a paragraph. If you butt those element's tags right next to each other, with no white space between them, then there will be no white space on the displayed page.

So don't tell the truth? It's interesting that people on Hacker News are intimidated so easily when confronted with such things.

Quit reading stupid articles written by out-of-work people with nothing better to do.

Complaints such as his, and most of the comments so far below, show a total lack of knowledge of the science and underpinnings behind the whole thing and the only supported proof throughout is silly, invalid examples of markup no one would ever use.

More laughable are the attempts at making HTML look like a programming language, which it is not, and I'd bet that comes as news to many.

Invalid markup means you are relying on the browser to read your intent or your mind. They are very good at doing that but no self-respecting web developer would ever do such an insane thing as your example.

EDIT: Interesting about the downvotes. It shows a total lack of understanding the fundamentals of how browsers work but, alas, downvote away.

Because whitespace matters in HTML.

You are confused. HTML is used to describe the structure of the document, not its visuals. CSS has nothing to do with the HTML content so your complaint about the property/value thing is misplaced and inlining CSS, as you show, is frowned upon.

Then you show the tag/tag thing as if that is a HTML pattern but what you show as your example is just gobbldey-gook nonsense and you claim it's typical.

I just don't know what to say to you.

Not when you know what you're doing and don't use auto code generators.

OT but, on Chrome and Firefox on FreeBSD, all the images and most of the text have the opacity of the images set to zero in their CSS and I can only see a couple of headlines. I presume their javascript is not detecting something correctly and not doing this right. Interesting. I've never seen that before.

EDIT: I just now noticed that the link above goes to /macbook/ but, if you go to the Apple site and click on Mac, the pathname is /mac/ and now I can see and read everything. Also interesting.

EDIT2: Ah but the Macbook link still doesn't show everything.

So, you mean like Unix/Linux/BSD always has?

You can come up with all kinds of "what ifs" while forgetting our (in the US) system of checks and balances which protestors forget about and want to circumvent by creating vigilante groups to take care of matters on their own. Anything can be made open for abuse but you are assuming no one is watching and will do nothing about it.

Funny but, on NBC News tonight, there was a story about 3 kids who went to Syria on their own. The family lawyer complained that the government, which is watching Facebook and all the social media they posted on, according to him, why didn't they alert the family to prevent this.

You can come up with all kinds of "what ifs" while forgetting our (in the US) system of checks and balances which protestors forget about and want to circumvent by creating vigilante groups to take care of matters on their own. Anything can be made open for abuse but you are assuming no one is watching and will do nothing about it.

Funny. Just a few minutes ago, I was watching NBC News story about the 3 teenage kids who went to Syria on their own. The family lawyer complained that, since the government is watching all the social media they posted on, why didn't they alert the family so this could be stopped?

To which all of HN would reply, "But ... but ..."

Straw man arguments all the way around with plenty of assumptions. You presume the government's intention is to monitor him and watch his every move to work against him. The fact is, the government may scan something about him looking for bad guys and, once it finds he is not one of them, quickly moves on.

Just as your badge may be checked when you enter work, or you have to walk through a metal detector, these scans are not looking for the every day man. You can thank terrorists for this and quit blaming the government for looking for them. You can thank the government for looking for them and curse the terrorists.

OT - "you should care that the police is very brutal to black people"

I have to say that this is a blatant lie brought on by the media and the internet scream. While you can find something bad about something at any time, to generalize based on the occasional incident is wrong.

His point is the last half. He's not a "person of interest" in these surveillance activities so it doesn't concern him; and it shouldn't.

No. I have no need to. There are better things to do with my time.

It's like saying I won't drive my car on the street because the police are watching you. But the police are looking for bad guys, not me. I'm not a bad guy.

I see so many people trying to block the police from doing their work finding bad guys. They don't want road checks for drunk drivers but then complain when a drunk driver kills someone. They don't want license plate scans for criminals and drug trafficking yet complain when they aren't caught.

They don't want the NSA scanning internet traffic and email yet complain they didn't catch the Boston bombers and others ahead of time while actively protesting the same thing.

I fear people like Snowden more than anything else.

Tell me when you've found better. In the meantime, you didn't say anything about the other test.

Suffice to say, if IE11 was that great, they wouldn't be dumping it and rewriting. That's considerable effort.

Where do you find something like this there?

It takes a few seconds to load on a 100Mb connection but Chrome works fine on FreeBSD.

Speed is NEVER the mark of a good browser. It can be a point on a list but, if it fails to properly implement standards or work in all devices, that's a failed browser. It's not the whole picture.

But you say you agree with my point.

If your Surface 3 can't handle the computing needs of a browser, that's not a resounding recommendation for owning a Surface.

As far as developing for the web, I've own a web dev company for 10 years and, among our list of clients, we manage two web sites you have visited before, one of which you probably visit every week or so. I was also, once, invited to work at Mozilla but declined. Does that answer your question?

Speed is not the mark of a good browser. If you are using speed as your mark, then you have never coded for the web and have never gone through the trials and tribulations of IE. If speed was the target, then Lynx would be the best of browsers.

http://html5test.com/

http://css3test.com/

If you are having problems in the other browsers, and not IE, then you're doing it wrong. Never, ever use IE as a reference for how things should work. THAT is the reason you are having trouble with the other browsers.

No web developer worth his salt writes code for any one browser. You write code to the standard and test in browsers. Anyone doing differently should be fired on the spot. I'm not aware of any professional web developer who does that.

Blink unloads a lot of legacy components in a way that Microsoft is attempting to do now.

I thoroughly disagree. Net Neutrality, today, is case in point. Until Chrome came along, Firefox was going it alone against IE. Until Google Fiber came along, we all had less than 10Mb downloads for $80/month.

There's much, much more. Pick better battles. Google is not your enemy.

No. Despite the experience of those who do a little bit of web dev, those of us who treat the web as our operating system still curse IE on a daily basis.

I hope that all those who currently talk about how wonderful IE11 is take note that Microsoft is, essentially, saying they're abandoning it for all these reasons.