Consider the word ‘smashing’. Using the above regular expression, the regex engine will first try to match the pattern ‘hi’ in ‘smashing’. It will not find a match.
I was rather underwhelmed by this article. Shoddy editing (is it "short hand" or "shorthand"?), oversight in code (missing the "margin:" declaration in the first tip), and unnecessary digs at Internet Explorer ("Of course, IE needs a little help ..."). Plus, many things on this list are not shorthand. #10 explains how to implement transparency, #11-15 are pseudo elements, and #18-20 are CSS3 properties.
Jeff Atwood (from Coding Horror) ran a comparison of bzip2 on 8 cores against 7-Zip on 2 cores in February. bzip2 ran faster but generated larger files.
"The only reason to go bzip2 is if you need the file compressed as rapidly as possible to a reasonable size.
On pure efficiency / energy, 7zip wins, despite bzip2 using 4x the CPU time."
At 4,220 words, he proves Google isn't making his writing more terse or staccato. And, with 22 links scattered throughout, are we expected to make it all the way through in one go without being distracted?
I'm tired of articles like this one. It's nothing more than people used to an old medium bemoaning the new one. To his credit, Mr. Carr draws the apt comparison with Plato:
In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates bemoaned the development of writing. He feared that, as people came to rely on the written word as a substitute for the knowledge they used to carry inside their heads, they would, in the words of one of the dialogue’s characters, “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful.” And because they would be able to “receive a quantity of information without proper instruction,” they would “be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part quite ignorant.” They would be “filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom.”
Obviously, the development of writing changed the world (I contend for the better, but that may be debateable). The crux of the article is that people will rely on the internet (Google) for information, instead of knowing it. I propose this scenario as a counter-example (originally from somewhere else, but I can't remember the source):
Suppose you have two people, Alice and Bob. Alice is your typical human being, and knows quite a bit about a range of topics. Bob has some kind of dementia that keeps him from being able to remember things, so he jots everything down in a notebook. If you ask him something, he'll consult his notebook. He has an equivalent amount of information as Alice. Who is smarter?
I can't say anything about this site in particular, but be wary of these prank websites in general. A friend of mine sent me a prank call through one and I've received a bunch of sales calls since then. I didn't get any (zero) before he pranked me.
From the presentation: "Did design do this? No. Not alone."
Mr. Utko recognizes that design cannot create a 20 to 100 percent increase in circulation. He isn't claiming that it can. He claims that if you "put your work to the highest possible level," you can pull off changes as successful as his.
I agree with your statement about TED, but this does not exemplify the "disconnect" of TED. It's ignorant to claim that his ideas are not relevant in the real world, since they very obviously increased circulation.
The most important slide from the presentation showed a Taijitu (yin and yang) diagram and made the following comparison: function is to form as content is to design.
That description makes it obvious that a pair of parentheses are the only thing lacking.