It's automatic text wrap. It also seems to be limited to the latest versions of Firefox (could be wrong, haven't made a point to notice this before but I've looked at that screen before and I'm anal enough that I would notice that too). Doesn't bother me, but does ... indicate... things about their testing.

Oakman wrote:

Nope, it just split into two

Wow, I completely missed that event. The never-ending ad-nauseum was part of why I stopped dropping by (only part :) ) Will likely drop by more often :)

Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:

It will be interesting to see how many of the 5000 are developers. I somehow think that many of them will be in supporting roles.

From the press release: "The layoffs, starting with 1,400 on Thursday, will affect workers in research and development, marketing, sales, finance, legal and corporate affairs, human resources and information technology, and mostly in Redmond, Wash., where the company is based. The cuts are expected to touch virtually every division and include the computer programmers who write code for existing and future applications." FWIW the divisions listed don't sound like many actual developers.

It's being widely used within MS and it is much more stable and speedy than prior beta releases of Windows. Apparently, although I haven't tried it on my laptop, connecting to WiFi networks is blazingly fast.

BoneSoft wrote:

They are a side-effect of war, acceptable or not. And many wars cannot be avoided. So I would suggest that they are as unacceptable in any number as they are unavoidable nonetheless.

I like that, but I think I have a slightly more.. integrated.. view of the subject. Because civilian casualties are such an effective means of attaining victory, one has to take that into consideration before ever even entering a war in the first place, because not all wars are avoidable. The problem with "clean" wars is that they simply encourage more wars. Imagine the logical conclusion of this, where humans no longer die in a war and all we do is throw robots at each other - there would be absolutely zero impetus to avoid war, short of the financial cost, which for most countries is not something they seriously consider (and in capitalist countries, at least until recently, wars actually tend to encourage growth and innovation). Frankly I think war is and should stay dirty. If you're going to get into a war, kill as many as possible, to make people think not twice, not thrice, but 100 times before ever getting into one. The cost is supposed to be high. Bringing it down just encourages conflict.

Henry Minute wrote:

Anyway I loved it but I cannot remember what it was called.

I know what game you're talking about. I remember being about 6 and loving that game... I can't remember the name either. :(

Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:

On the other hand, "How to get girls to talk to you" would make you billions.

I call dibs!!

Oakman wrote:

Maybe there isn't one.

Actually, that's the most obvious conclusion. The next most obvious is that the assumption that providing capital for the level of invention and innovation on the scale we're used to is a worthwhile goal - maybe it isn't. Maybe accepting a slower rate of development is a fair tradeoff for increased stability and an ability to have an economy not based entirely on credit. There mere suggestion, of course, gets one shouted down as a communist.

Rob Graham wrote:

The Quran or Sharia still holds that this is the case. It was never so in the United States, nor as far as I am aware in any European country.

It was very much the case in colonial America. Polite society, still having either traveled or being directly descended from English or other European polite society, held it to be "unseemly" either to 1) talk about how you earn money and 2) to earn money through interest. This is not something that is commonly known because capitalism required us to forget it [I'm not *necessarily* judging here, merely observing], but it's a commonly treated subject in history texts that go beyond dates and places. It is a subject that is treated in the Christian Bible. And Benjamin Franklin, for example, struggled most of his life to be precisely part of this "polite society", the great irony being that the American Revolution all but obliterated it.

Rob Graham wrote:

He made a general assertion that it is better to help those who borrow than those who save,

Hmmm ok I suppose. For what it's worth, I don't think particularly highly of the government helping either group, but if it's going to, it would seem to make sense to help borrowers only when not helping presents a clear danger to economic stability, but generally to always support savers.

Rob Graham wrote:

Without savers, there is no money to be borrowed.

Errr Rob, I was with you until this part. In a credit economy, it is borrowing that provides money for.. more borrowing. Banks use the money owed as collateral against future loans - they're lending money they don't actually have. Financial regulations allow them to do this and control the percentage of real value versus virtual value that can be loaned. It's also why when the economy tanks, bank failures accelerate so quickly. It's also an incredibly unstable way to do business. I keep thinking there's a better way, but I can't come up with one that still provides enough capital for invention and innovation on the scale that we're used to...

I could make millions. Or at least a few hundred thousand.[^]

suhredayan wrote:

What is the point in helping those who wish to grow their money by doing nothing?

For those who 1-voted this, recall that there was a time not too long ago when it was seen as immoral to make money off of interest. Reason being, every single penny of that money comes from interest charged to people who usually can't pay it but have no choice but to do so. Classic usury. The issue is ALOT more complex than "stupid people who took out bigger loans than they could pay." While I have no sympathy for that behavior, I think it's more complex than that.

Recommend Dock Panel Suite.. used that in a couple of projects awhile back with great results.

Eli Nurman wrote:

after getting the inner html of the control how do i process it? i need a regex pattern

Have you ever used xpath before? With xpath, you can do something like htmlDoc.SelectNodes("//yoursubdiv/your_option_box/select"); And you will get a collection of nodes back whose values are the text of the selections. No need for regex, no need for html parsing. This is the best suggestion I can make. Otherwise you'll need to spend some time studying regex and figuring out the exact pattern required to pick out the right dropdown, etc. It can be an irritating and mind-numbing process. If your document is guaranteed to be XHTML valid, you can even use Xml navigators straight out of the .NET framework with no need to use the Html Agility Pack (HAP is designed to provide XPATH functionality to html documents, which are not strict xml and so will not validate in the XmlDocument constructor).

Try Html Agility Pack: http://www.codeplex.com/htmlagilitypack[^] For a one-off it may be overkill, but if you're going to be doing alot of html parsing it can be incredibly useful to use xpath on html.

Kevin McFarlane wrote:

A regulation refers to a law that prohibits or restricts an interaction that is mutually consenting

Hmmm.. Ok. Nevermind. In retrospect your definition is a reasonably objective one. I was going to comment something along the lines of "it also prevents employers from creating conditions where an employee will "agree" to sacrifice eyes and fingers if their need for work is bad enough" but you didn't express it as a value judgement so I can't really retort with that :)

Gary Wheeler wrote:

A lot of the media are whacking something else...

Let me give you my address. I need a new keyboard. :-D

Christian Graus wrote:

*grin*

Hehe yep.. I thought of you immediately. I think you have, far and away by 20,000 or more, the most posts of any user on this site..

John M. Drescher wrote:

Just wondering, did you get an explanation?

But we know the answer - because Circuit City/Best Buy/etc. rely on the uninformed consumer by overpricing everything by 20-30% and then having "Sales" whose prices are at or near their regular price. An apparently very successful technique is to TELL people the item is marked off, but to not actually mark it off. All people need is to THINK they're getting a good deal, not actually get one. As John noted this is called sale fraud and is very common in the US. I don't know about other countries.

^H^H^H^H^H^H^H NO CARRIER [edit] [giggles]

modified on Sunday, November 9, 2008 1:25 PM